Slashdot Mirror
How Politics Interacts With Games
Crispy Gamer sat down with Hal Halpin, president of the Entertainment Consumer Association, and had him explain how the games industry interacts with various aspects of the government, such as lobbying efforts, the supreme court, and particular politicians. A related editorial suggests some things President Elect Obama can do to bring change to the industry. "We also need to rein in the used games market and not with DRM. It is fundamentally unfair that developers are being robbed of profits for work that they've done. If the ESA will not offer a mandate, then we'll need the government to do so. Publishers and developers should be entitled to at least half of the price from the sale of every used game." Kotaku has a response which points out flaws in the author's arguments.
I really have to say it, that's a darn tunnel visioned statement. I don't know a single creative work where the resulting work cannot be resold legally, and the original work's creator gets even a dime off that used sale. So, what exactly makes games the special case?
Publishers and developers should be entitled to at least half of the price from the sale of every used game.
I can agree with that if the price for used games is given in meters of broom up the arse.
Money grabbing bastards. If it wasn't for trade-ins and 2nd-hand game sales a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford games and with this mandate, prices of used games would go up and the value of trade-ins would go down. If they want more people buying new games, how about not making them cost £50 a pop for a new next-gen game?
If they want to make money off of used games, sell some worthwhile DLC. By that, I don't mean CliffyB's idea of selling the final boss to 2nd hand buyers, I mean add-ons to the main game. I doubt Harmonix worry about used-game sales of Rock Band because if they love the game, they will buy more songs.
The only way I want to see politics and games interact is with Sarah Palin being blown up in Mercenaries 2.
No one is "robbed" of profits by used game sales.
The number of new copies sold of a game is a complex function of popularity, marketing, and quality. The number of used copies on the market is a function of the game's longevity, popularity, and quality. If the demand for the game is high, the number of used copies will be low. If the demand for the game is low, the number of used copies will be high.
If you don't believe me, go to the local used games store and ask for a used copy of Chrono Trigger for the SNES. There might be one. It will be like $100. Now ask for a used copy of Madden 08. There are five of them for $9 each. The author is arguing that game developers should be rewarded extra money for producing games that are less desirable than successful games. If you produce a horrible game, and then have EA market the bajeezus out of it, you will find that in three months the bargain bins will be full of this game. Should we now reward the bad quality of this game by forcing retailers to pay out of pocket? It is some sort of "mediocrity tax" that goes against everything that is good about free market economics.
Not only that, but the entire idea stinks of government directing the flow of the economy, something the Soviet Union discovered does not work so well. If I purchase something, I become the owner. Part of my rights of "life, liberty, and property" include "property", which means I own things that I buy and can in turn sell them to someone else. The author is, in a sense, arguing against the idea of ownership. You don't really own anything. You are just paying EA a fee to use it, and when you are done using it, you have to give it back.
If game developers want to stop being "robbed of profits", they should stop making boring games that I can beat in a week, which have no further interest to me. People are bored of spending $60 on a game that has $3 million worth of graphics content and $.35 worth of game. You know what games I sell used? Crappy ones with no replay value. You know what games I still own? Kick ass games that I still play from time to time, even though they may be old. Games that I enjoyed so much that, even though I don't play them anymore, I just love having them.
If they stamp out the buying and selling of used games, they will discover something interesting: The sales of good games will not increase, and the sales of bad games will actually decrease, because people are risk averse to something they can't sell once they've ripped through the 9 hours of expensive art content with no challenge or depth whatsoever.
"developers are being robbed of profits for work that they've done" This is absolutely brilliant. [/sarcasm] How about developers come up with content that will hold users' attention long enough so used games won't directly compete with their new counterparts? A lot of people I know hold on to the good games they get because they might want to play again in the future. By the way, can I return a game after I have installed it because I'm not satisfied with its features? Like, when I don't like how the game responds, or because it has below standard artistic value, or simply because the game isn't nearly as fun as it was advertised to be? The game industry gets away with too much bullshit already. I'm not about to have them milk me for money like I'm some dairy cattle.
Rubbish. Every other industry can survive and thrive with the existance of used goods. On top of that, taking a cut of the sales is a major violation of our property rights.
half of the profit, if anything.
Problem is: profits don't show up per unit, especially not if you're selling second hand items.
The whole idea stinks anyway.
I know what you're thinking: How can Obama help us, though? He doesn't have the best track record when it comes to video games, especially with his infamous "put the video games away" comment. He has also stated that he would like to examine in greater depth the impact of video games on the development of children -- studies that usually never favor the industry and are peppered with errors.
Here's an idea: Why doesn't the game industry do its own studies? Tobacco does their own. Alcohol does their own. Sure we don't kill or cause long-term damage, but why is it only the peaceful industries don't do studies? There's certainly enough money in games to fund one.
And you resell it, you have to give me 50% of the price?
Online content. Online distribution.
The second-hand game game isn't going to be a problem much longer. There won't be a retail box - at least not with a game that is playable out of the box.
if you write a song
or a book
or a movie
or a game
guess what: no, you are not allowed to sit on your ass for the rest of your life and derive profit for that
what you are entitled to is to work, like the rest of us, for a some return on some daily effort
of course, the sit on your ass for the rest of your life bullshit is exactly what current law dictates. andd current law is fundamentally broken. its unenforceable
creators, you need to get over that misconception right now, because regardless of whatever the law says, the technology has already broken the law, written decades ago. its not 1988. with scratchy vcr tapes and muddy mixtapes and washed out xeroxes. digital copying and the internet fundamentally changes the landscape. every teenager in their basement has more distribution reach than time warner and bertelsmann in 1988. anyone, anywhere, can have a copy of whatever the hell they want, for free, with complete integrity and clarity, anytime they damn well please
creators: you deserve some protection, but not the sitting on your ass for life+70 anymore. its not a matter of what the law says. its a matter fo what is enforceable, and that shit is just not enforceable anymore
besides, creators, the law never benefitted you in the first place, it always benefitted the distributors. its always been the biggest lie that copyright and ip is for creators. its for distributors
ip law is over. the internet killed it. get used to it, it will only accelerate, and a whool enew generation lives in a culture now where none of ip law is respected, or should be respected. ip law was always meant as a contrite genetleman's agreement between large industry players. it was never meant, and is impossible to apply to, the random kid on the street
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Surely the way they interact with Games is to complain about Sex/Drugs/Violence in games as being the root of all evil and the cause of all society's ills. Stuff around copyright (and the insane idea of a sell-on tax) is how companies interact with politicians rather than anything to do with the games themselves.
The politicians screaming "think of the children" around games like GTA is, and will remain, the norm. Given that most politicians are well over game playing age this is hardly surprising and I can't quite see Obama saying that he is a big GTA or other "controversial" game fan.
So basically politicians don't interact with games, they interact with Games companies and with the media to decry the fall of civilisation.
And this from a bunch of people for whom being a convicted Felon isn't something that bars them from office.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Give game stores a reason to do so. Maybe decent profit margins on new games would be a good start? They're not going to throw their money away just so you can make money, no money for the store means other means of getting moeny or simply no store at all.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Reigning in the used game market is obviously a stupdid statement. First sale doctrine, etc., etc.
I'm more concerned about the number of times I've heard variations of this statement made by otherwise intelligent people:
"There is no better opportunity than now to try to engage Obama in open dialogue about our industry and correct some of these mistruths. I implore ECA President Hal Halpin, ESRB President Patricia Vance, head of EA Sports/industry veteran
Peter Moore and a journalist of proper caliber (Geoff Keighley, Rob Fahey and Dan Hsu all come to mind) to approach President-Elect Obama about having an open dialogue with the industry"
The problem (if you can call it that) with charismatic people is that we tend to project our own desires onto them. Hence all the ninnies saying that Obama will pay for their gas, and everything else under the sun, and the people (some of my friends included) sending in their resumes for positions in his administration. Because he's listening.
Even though Obama is inexperienced, per se, he's shown himself to be an experienced politician, and the best politicians are capable of making it sound like they're listening to you and even agreeing with you while politely shooing you out the back door.
So, what exactly makes games the special case?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing makes them a special case and this idiot knows it. He's dancing as fast as he can to try and get special privileges, which will then be extended to other things. This isn't exactly why Jefferson was afraid of Copyright, but it's close enough. Screw'em all. Reset the system to 14+14 plus continued protection of the character should they make new product with the character.
e.g.
Steamboat Willie (Mickey Mouse's first cartoon) would be public domain, but as long as they released a new Mickey flick / short every 28 years, they'd control the creative aspects of the character. Nobody else would be able to create new Mickey titles legally. Heck, I'd even go with toughening the enforcement at that point.
Copyright was never intended to be a perpetual annuity, but an incentive for the artist to create more. I'm against piracy, by both sides.
People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
The Kotaku article makes some good points about why we shouldn't pander to the developers and restrict the used games market, but he seems to think that Kelly Blue Book is a government price regulator... wha!?
The original writer posted their with the conclusion that much of what he said wasn't well thought out, he wouldn't suggest the same thing now, and that his whole point was that if the original developers made a few cents on the dollar it might stop DRM from encroaching on the games market.
Thing is, how do you implement even that idea without running up huge infrastructure costs. And when do the royalties stop, or who do they go to if the game company goes --fffffttt-- ??
Certainly the idea of supporting gaming developers is good. We do it by buying games new -- but good games nowadays take teams, teams take $$, and $$ take corporate involvement -- and as a result the gaming developers don't get their ROI for their hours that they used to.
And like the articles authors, I don't know the answer either.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Wait till they're in the bargain bin at three for £10. I'm surprised how quickly they arrive there nowadays.
absolutely right
except: no need for actors to go back to the theatre. movie houses are doing bang up business. the death of the movie house was predicted because of tv, and the business still grew. vcr, dvd, internet: it was all supposed to kill movie houses. every year the business does bigger business. i think its psychological. why do people go to church instead of receive spiritual enlightenment at home by themselves? despite babies and cell phones, i think people actually like the laughs and oohs fo the crowds around them, it enhances the experience
and artists, even if they got $0 from their efforts, will still do it for the fame, and the access to chicks
and there's always ancillary business. if jk rowling made $0 from books, she'd still make millions from cutting deals with hollywood, and action figures, speaking engagements, etc. all sorts of ancillary business
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In other words, to summarize: high ranking lobby group leader (i.e., practically a politician) tries to please both sides of the fence, and does an 180 degree turn when his comment turns out hideously unpopular. Of course, he'll still try to sell the original story to the politicians.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Nick Michetti that is. Hal Halpin has some decent points.
Michetti seems to have thrown out a load of random ideas which basically amount to "give the games industry lots of tax breaks because I like it like it is".
Obama doesn't care about games. He advertised in games because the campaign had lots of money and the ads were cheap enough to justify. The campaign advertised just about everywhere else too, even places that traditionally are seen as pointless for political ads.
Companies get a fair number of the suggested tax breaks already. Middleware developers don't sell to big companies because they're short of money. They sell up because they're actually doing very well, and the big companies offer the founders a big pot of cash to get a bite of that success.
Under Bush, the Federal Trade Commission, like many of the other regulatory agencies, has been more or less out to lunch. Obama is probably going to put someone more consumer-oriented in charge there. That's bad news for companies shipping intrusive DRM systems that damage computers, are hard to uninstall, or come with deceptive EULAs.
"Have you ever heard of the Doctrine of First Sale?!"
"Err, I don't listen to hip-hop."
Meh, I've never been much of a gamer ayway, especially not in the past 10 years. But the best old games will never die *hugs her SNES and Lufia cartridges*
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
The name suggests that this is a consumer organization, but all I see is an industry backed troll... Why would any consumer advocate *against* used game sales?
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
GNAA Announces Full Cybermilitary Support of the German Government Mikhail Borovsky (GNAP) - Moscow, Russia - GNAA President timecop and Vice-President jesuitx held a press conference live via satellite from GNAA US HQ in Tarzana, CA where they announced full cybermilitary support of the German government following the German injunction against Wikipedia. From the German Wikipedia site at www.wikipedia.de, "Liebe Freunde Freien Wissens, durch eine vor dem Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg am 17. Januar 2006 erwirkte einstweilige Verfugung wurde dem Verein Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Forderung Freien Wissens e.V. untersagt, von dieser Domain auf die deutschsprachige Ausgabe der freien Enzyklopadie Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) weiterzuleiten." This roughly translates as, "Dear friends and comrades, Wikipedia has been shut down as of January 17th, 2006 due to a court injunction by the government of Germany, due to extensive support by Wikipedia for the Jews and the state of Israel". This type of support was made illegal in Germany in 1939 by the Berlin Pact, signed by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany has announced that this injunction will not be lifted until Wikipedia stops supporting "Die Juden". "We also feel this injunction came in due time, as Wikipedia is being overrun by articles pertaining to non-notable blogs with completely useless information (or "blogs"), which are also illegal in the Great Republic of Germany. We are pleased to receive the support of the Gay Niggers, as they have already declared war on the blogs, and know how to defeat this communist ideal before it can become a threat to freedom," said Mrs. Merkel.
First Post Nigga!