How the Syrian Games Industry Crumbled Under Sanctions and Violence

Fluffeh writes "Syria's games industry now looks like just another collateral casualty of dictator Bashar Al-Assad's struggle to hold power. 'Life for Syrian game developers has never been better,' joked Falafel Games founder Radwan Kasmiya, 'You can test the action on the streets and get back to your desktop to script it on your keyboard.' Any momentum Syria may have been building as a regional game development hub slowed considerably in 2004, when then-US President George W. Bush levied economic sanctions against the country. Under the sanctions, Syria's game developers found themselves cut off from investment money they needed to grow, as well as from other relationships that were just as important as cash. 'Any [closure of opportunity] is devastating to a budding games company as global partnerships are completely hindered,' said Rawan Sha'ban of the Jordanian game development company Quirkat. 'Even at the simplest infrastructure level, game development engines [from the US] cannot be purchased in a sanctioned country.'"

Comments

Syria was a game developer hub?

[crazyjj]

And you thought women programmers were rare HERE.

But seriously, does anyone know what games were developed there? Falafel Games seems to best be known for "Knights of Glory," which I've never heard of. But anything bigger?

Re:Syria was a game developer hub?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

TFA mentions a few, none with any name recognition to speak of in the US market; but apparently they moved a fair number of units regionally.

Re:Syria was a game developer hub?

[phantomfive]

If you read the article, Under Ash is there biggest game, which sold several hundred thousand. It's an FPS from the Palestinian point of view. You never win, it gets harder and harder no matter how good you are, eventually you die.

They also made an RTS that focuses on Islamic history.

Life in Syria sucks all around

[Anonymous Coward]

Horrible oppressive dictatorships tend to stifle small businesses.

But very clever to blame it all on George Bush.

Damn dubya, if it wasn't for him Syria would be a fun land full of gamers and anime!!!

*wacks off to huffpost* *smug grin*

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Smug satisfaction is enormously pleasurable; but there is an open line of argument about the question of the efficacy of economic sanctions, which this story serves as a case of(along with the not-really-news that serious violence usually drives off and/or kills off the local human capital)...

Depending on the local economy, how the local government is funded, how effective or ineffective a set of economic sanctions is, and probably enough other variables that only a hardened social scientist would be comfortable drawing conclusions, there is the potential for sanctions to hurt the local despot's local enemies more than his local allies and critical supply sources. It's also possible that you end up hurting both, or that your sanctions are so porous as to be irrelevant.

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[LordLimecat]

Economic sanctions dont mean we roll in there and take their money; they amount to one country saying "we dont like what youre doing, so we wont trade with you freely, and will encourage others not to as well".

If there WERENT sanctions, I imagine wed be seeing an article about how Bush was in bed with Syrian leadership and is to blame for the hardship there now.

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[Anonymous Coward]

That 'oppressive dictator' has the support of the majority of Syrians.

You may want to read something other than your propaganda for a change. Might learn that the world's a little different than what Fox and CNN tell you.

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[Nidi62]

That 'oppressive dictator' has the support of the majority of Syrians.

It doesn't matter if he has support of 99% of the population. You still don't set up snipers to indiscriminately shoot civilians, use mortars and tanks to bombard neighborhoods, or block out international media and peacekeeping inspectors.

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[hey!]

The summary doesn't "blame it all on George Bush"; it points out the reasonably neutral fact that the sanctions he put in place hobbled Syrian game development companies. Since putting economic pressure on the regime is the *point* of sanctions, the fact that it worked in this case is neither here nor there as to whether the sanctions were justified.

Perhaps you think the idea of a Syrian game development company is just silly. I don't see why a county of 22 million people couldn't produce a few successful small time game development studios, especially after the iPhone came on the market. The top two universities in Syria have 180,000 and 56,000 undergraduates respectively. Damascus University offers graduate programs in computer science and informatics through an in-country cooperative program with a British university.

Sounds like a country which could support a few companies in the gaming industry. And it wouldn't be silly at all for some Syrian hackers to start companies to produce games. Remember, it's not about *playing* games; it's about putting bread on the table by *creating* games for others to play. The median income from an iOS app is something like $3000. That's a lot of money in a country with a per capita GDP of $2800.

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[poity]

And 99% of North Koreans support Kim Jong Un (the other 1% are in luxurious diet camps in the mountains). What's your point? Shit, a majority of Americans in February 2003 supported the imminent Iraq invasion. Guess that's alright by your book, and anyone who said anything different was a victim of anti-American propaganda right?

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unfortunately, there generally isn't a good alternative. Problems are not, alas, required to have satisfactory solutions.

Asking nicely never hurts; but helps approximately as often. Armed intervention typically has consequences that make economic sanctions look like a polite humanitarian gesture, so you have to really have a good reason to use it.

The 'argument' I was referring to was the question of whether sanctions are effective, even marginally, or whether they are actually counterproductive. If they simply don't do what you want them to, you don't really need an alternative in order to not use them. Simply doing nothing is better. If they do work, somewhat, doing nothing becomes less compelling, and so the question of whether you should be doing sanctions or something else can arise.

I have strong doubts about the Syrian situation being 'solvable' in any way that we would prefer(particularly given that years of being downright nasty about suppressing dissent have not given the government significant trouble, and they've been good buddies with Iran for years, despite that not being something we approve of). What I don't know is how much our sanctions hurt the state, and its supporters, vs. how much they hurt the state's potential opponents.

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[swb]

I think historically sanctions probably work better than the credit they get. At a minimum they raise the cost of doing business since a country under sanctions has to now engage in some subterfuge to keep engaging in whatever the sanctions were supposed to change.

For severe sanctions, this can mean drastically raised costs -- Iran hasn't been stopped from pursuing its nuclear program, for example, but the few suppliers they have are probably charging the Iranians whatever they want and getting paid up front in an expensive to obtain currency or submarket-priced oil.

In Syria's case I don't think there have been serious sanctions levied against them until recently. Direct trade with the US was impossible, but there were always satellite/client state Lebanon or other Arab states who weren't subject to the sanctions. The Assads run a near monopoly on anything worthwhile in Syria, so increased wholesale costs are just that, increased wholesale costs.

As for sanctions hurting the broader cause by hindering opponents or more broadly, allowing a state to trumpet sanctions as the reason for price increases or a shitty currency that only goes so far.

For one, how effective has resistance EVER been in Syria or Iran? Short of a running guerrilla war without an outside supplier, resistance in those states has been near zero and of limited effectiveness, even now in Syria.

Secondly, when you have a secret police, censor the media and jail political opponents, your PR of "blaming" sanctions for economic problems will only get you limited support. Iranians aren't stupid and they know that a dictatorial oppressive regime that openly supports terrorism is the real problem and that state policies more in line with Jordan will get them further than state policies more in line with North Korea.

Re:Life in Syria sucks all around

[isilrion]

It's all fine and dandy to argue that economic sanctions don't work or don't achieve the desired goals in a timely fashion (cf. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria), but what's your alternative?

Cuban here. How about just not trying to make the people of that country missplace the blame in the government in hopes that they will raise against it? If it is were so bad, we would just raise without your pressure, and maybe even ask you for support (arguably, the fact that the sanction exists just shows the population that "you" are not the good guys, regardless of our opinion regarding the government - and if you are clearly trying to oppress us, most of us wont side with your "cause"). If it isn't so bad, then why intervene in the first place? It's one thing to refuse to sell weapons and torture devices and to encourage others to do the same. It's quite another (to give an example that should be familiar to slashdot) to interfere with the country's ability to connect to the Internet and at the same time, complain that the horrible dictator wont let us browse the web out of fear.

One of the reasons that Cuban dissidents are not popular isn't fear of the government... Is that those who are known are clearly paid (in the form of "prizes" won) to follow an US agenda, or can't distinguish between not being free and being poor (cue the ones "exiled" to Spain last year protesting for lack of "freedom" after the spanish government cut their subsidies). The second group are dumb, the first one can't be trusted, and the ones in neither group are silenced... by both national and international media.

(Full disclosure: I left Cuba mainly for economic reasons, though I also had my dislikes about the government. I suspect that the reason why I only had "dislikes" were the sanctions - it is stupid to blame the Castros for everything when a powerful third party is explicitly trying to make you despair. Given that from here I still can't see any mention of a dissident with a coherent platform, I'm starting to suspect there isn't one.)

TL;DR: if the only options you are considering are to starve the population, or to outright kill them in an invasion... you are not the "good" guys.

Yet another reason to go after Bush

[MikeRT]

For all of their bullshit about human rights, the neocon Bush administration threw the religious and ethnic minorities of Iraq to the wolves in the name of "democracy." Iraq has lost half of its Christian population because of the violence and persecution they've faced since the fall of the Ba'athist regime. The US needs to stop meddling in these countries; the "freedom fighters" are often as bad as the regimes they want to replace. Hell, even now in post-Kadaffi Libya, the Berbers are getting mistreated even worse than before.

When this is what democracy means, I say "fuck democracy."

Re:Yet another reason to go after Bush

[lister king of smeg]

So it is bad to invade, but it is also bad to sit back and stay out of the rest of the worlds affairs? make up your minds people

Re:Yet another reason to go after Bush

[shutdown -p now]

When you stand back, you are not the one directly responsible for what happens in those countries.

When you invade and trigger the persecutions, you are.

So, yes, it is worse to invade if you do it like that. The point is really rather that if you do invade on premise of "bringing freedom and democracy", then stay there long enough to actually make it work, forcibly if needed. You did that with Japan back in the day, so it's not a pipe dream.

Problem is, this kind of civilization project requires stronger commitment in terms of both money and military power. More importantly, it requires being honest about what you're doing and how, rather than playing PR games about how locals are running the show. Something that America seems to not have the balls for these days...

really?

[circletimessquare]

assad is a murderous tyrant, but we want to focus on sanctions george bush put on his regime... and its effects on the gaming industry? this is the important thing to talk about?

if you demonstrate an eagerness to talk about the usa and american actions, or GAMING, for crying out loud... on the topic of a country currently under the full force of mass murder of civilians by a true tyrant on a daily basis for months... you look like you are less motivated by actual principles and more like you are either obsessed with the usa or lack all proportionality in your ability to think about and understand the world you live in

really? the fucking gaming industry is the important issue here? i'm pretty fucking sure the entire syrian gaming industry would agree with me: "uhhh... that's a little unimportant right now, they are murdering us"

there are people dying in this world for rights that some people in the west take completely for granted... because obviously, it's more important to talk about fucking videogames, on the topic of syria right now

wake the fuck up, you coddled fat suburbanites

Re:really?

[Microlith]

Oh, shut up you sanctimonious twat. It's looking at the effect on an industry as a result of Assad's destructive actions and the sanctions they incurred.

It's called taking a perspective, one of many you can have in places as diverse as the middle east.

THIS is your criticism of economic sanctions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, economic sanctions harm a country's economy. This should not be news. That's precisely what they're designed to do. It's the stick to encourage behavior (in this particilar case, the decades-long occupation of Lebanon and state sponsorship of Hamas).

But, yeah, they do have side effects. And THIS is the one you're focusing on? Oh, no, we can't produce videogames domestically as easily!

You want to talk side effects of sanctions? Talk about people starving without food aid. Talk of infrastructure crumbling because they can't get funding to finance those projects (which will cripple the economy for decades). Talk about people who can't get proper medical care. Talk about small shop owners who can't make ends meet. But video game developers? THEY'RE the victims you want to cry out for?

Hi, Welcome to Slashdot

[eldavojohn]

assad is a murderous tyrant, but we want to focus on sanctions george bush put on his regime... and its effects on the gaming industry? this is the important thing to talk about?

The sanctions are part of the history of Syria's currently ailing game development industry. Think of this as maybe a case history of how a destabilized nation can lose out on arts and entertainment due to sanctions. This is, arguably, the point of sanctions: not to deplete food, water, shelter but more so the nice-to-haves (one of which is games).

if you demonstrate an eagerness to talk about the usa and american actions, or GAMING, for crying out loud... on the topic of a country currently under the full force of mass murder of civilians by a true tyrant on a daily basis for months... you look like you are less motivated by actual principles and more like you are either obsessed with the usa or lack all proportionality in your ability to think about and understand the world you live in

really? the fucking gaming industry is the important issue here? i'm pretty fucking sure the entire syrian gaming industry would agree with me: "uhhh... that's a little unimportant right now, they are murdering us"

You seem to have misread this article from the PoV as we are trying to help save Syrian lives. That's not really the case and the mainstream media has already covered this issue fairly well. You're actually reading a techie site called Slashdot where games and technology are two important topics. While politics and conflict sometimes find their way into the discussion, it's usually kept to the topics most important to us. Just because humans are losing their lives and that's the most important thing, doesn't mean we have to ignore the facets that are important to us and also affected by this conflict. As such, you can turn your attention to a variety of other news sources if you want body counts or UN actions. But if you're curious about the collateral to Syria's Games Industry, here is a unique story on it. It's not meant to replace the reporting on the actual conflict but mildly augment it.

there are people dying in this world for rights that some people in the west take completely for granted... because obviously, it's more important to talk about fucking videogames, on the topic of syria right now

wake the fuck up, you coddled fat suburbanites

You seem to make the assumption that because we're talking about Syrian games and not people dying that we don't care about it. Did you know that last night The Simpsons aired at its regular time slot instead of emergency 24/7 reporting on all television channels about the conflict in Syria? And I suppose we're all horrible awful inhuman demons for not constantly talking about death in Syria? Instead of instructing me to "wake the fuck up, you coddled fat suburbanite" I suggest you consider the possibility that I am capable of consuming a very diverse range of news reports, this being one of a particular topic. And to stop assuming that this is the only coverage of Syria I'm being exposed to.

Here at Slashdot, games are art. Art is culture. And a destruction of culture is indeed an important topic. Syria appeared to be a major hub of game development in the Middle East and Arab World so of course it is important to note when their game industry is sent back to the stone age. This means that a large part of the world isn't getting something that is integral to our lifestyle and it will be a long time before that industry catches up with the West. Which is truly unfortunate because, unlike nuclear weapons, these are cultural experiences that can be enjoyed the world over.

Worst Places

[mrops]

Basher has 55% popularity in Syria, his oppression of the other 45% is definitely wrong, however there are places like Bahrain where the rulers have only 30% support, they are killing doctors who happen to help peaceful protesters shot by shotguns at point blank range by the local enforcement. The difference is that Assad is supported by Iran and Bahrain is a western ally.

What bull shit, the mighty west comes screaming foul when one of those pissed and frustrated by their policies does something stupid.

Re:Oh no!

[P-niiice]

Ah yes, just throw the word 'jihad' in there. Instant comedy.

I wonder if they do the same over there? Just throw the word 'hot dog' or Uncle Sam into something barely related to the subject at hand for instant comedy about Americans.