That's 10% of the entire retail market. Not the video game market. In the video game market Wal-Mart has more around 25% market share. That's 1 out of every 4 games sold are sold from Wal-Mart.
So when you think about this in mass numbers Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2) made 5.1 million. Cut Wal-Mart out of the loop they may have only made 3.8 million.
There was never a question of making this an anti trust case, because it's not. But, that is a huge chuck of sales and no business man is going to tell you to ignore ¼ of you potential market and that is why Wal-Mart is a driving force in the game industry.
I may be in the minority on this but I would like more detailed field/industry categories. Just because I know C++ doesn't mean I want to code tax software. And just because I did QA work on Madden doesn't mean I want to QA yacht off board motor / ground terrain monitoring systems
This should filter employer replies as well. I would like to say don't allow employers in the following fields... to contact me.
Not that I think there is anything wrong with other industries. I'm just not interested in them right now and don't want to waist time for both of us.
Ao = pornography. Or at least that is the way it is treated. If you get rated by the ESRB as an Ao title you can not sell your game. Retailers won't sell it at all. You will rely on internet sails as your only source of revenue.
Also the ESRB is not free. Developers have to pay to get their games rated by them. Games that would get rated Ao (pornographic games) don't get rated because they don't feel like throwing away the money. It is the same way with movies. People who make pornographic movies don't bother to have the movie rated either. They know it.
When you know that your product is not supposed to be available for mass audience there is no reason to take the steps to prove it.
Comparing video game to movies and books isn't a good test honestly. They have completely different types of content.
Video games are closer to television then they are to books or movies in term of content. Movies and books have long interwoven stories that are built on character development and plot twists for entertainment. Because video games give the player choices plot twists are more difficult to pull of without making the player feel like they have no control. Television and video game have much different paths to follow for entertainment.
Sports broadcasts: Sports games Cartoons: Platformers Documentaries: historical games Reality TV: the Sims Dramas and thrillers: adventure games and action games Sci fi and fantasy shows: RPGs
So to me the better comparison for games writing would be the writers for television shows.
You don't watch The Kids Next Door, Ed Edd and Eddie, or Totally Spies for the plot, just like you don't play Mario, Ratchet and Clank, or Jak and Daxter for the plot either. If you're watching TV for a plot you watch shows like 24 or lost, if you are playing games for the plot you play games like the longest journey or killer 7. Just like television not all the writers are that great, but there are some good ones, and they are getting better.
Although television is closer it is still not a perfect comparison. In television the viewer has no control and this gives e writers a lot les to worry about. A script writer never has to worry about "what if the protagonist decides not to peruse the antagonist." They know that the protagonist will do it because they say he will. In games to more choices you take away from the player the less they feel they are playing the game and more they feel they are watching the game. It's a hard balance to maintain and it is a challenge that is pretty unique to writing for games.
I played the game and every time I did anything immoral or involving unsocial behavior I don't remember getting rewarded for it. In fact I remember having people trying to arrest or attack me when I did anything like that. I don't remember getting rewarded for anything other then finishing the missions and the missions in this game are mundane every day activities.
Really it seems like the game rewarded you for doing the mundane and punished you for doing something violent or antisocial.
Kind of seems like the game was showing consequences for your action. And really what consequences are there for charity, commerce, and altruism. Should they implement a contemptuousness and self-admiration meter?
So really I don't see your argument. Having good deeds go unrewarded seems true to life.
This is still really good news for the people who shop on Ebay for copies of these more rare games. I know when I was shopping for a copy of Gitaroo man it was always going for around $70. The prices have dropped now I'm guessing that this is one of the reasons.
In the end this should be really good for the cult games. There are a lot of games that don't make it as a hit out the gate because they are under advertised but later gain fans from word of mouth. Doing this type of thing will help those titles out greatly. This could help good games made by small companies that can't afford big advertising budgets get some recognition.
This shouldn't come as a surprise really. In many Asian nations there have been adult themed games for years. (Look up H-Games on wiki) Making an organization and conference determining ways tat the American market can do a similar thing seems logical.
My only real concern is, what will this type of thing do to the non pornographic games? This could push it either way. Once something has been deemed pornographic the people purchasing them must be carded for proof of age by current pornography laws, perhaps that will be enough when people see examples of truly adult games. On the other hand once there are a few games out that are deemed pornographic it may give a big enough window to get those video game censorship laws passed.
Re:Uh, great?
on
Kong Lives!
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Your right, this isn't news. It is an advertisement.
Is it just me or has this game gotten way more media time then anything else? I'm sure the guys in the marketing team are doing a good job but it seems like it is more then that. The media has grabbed this title like it is the next coming of Jesus.
To be quite honest. This has been pushed so much I was kinda hoping it would flop.
I feel the same way. I really like the company and I agree with what they are saying, but it does seem like too much of a risk. I might buy a few stocks out of support, but nothing that I would be afraid of loosing.
That is why I used the qualifier "most" obviously F.E.A.R., Doom 3, Half life 2 and that type are much more impressive. But the majority of FPSs are not as impressive. As to what the article was talking about (High-res textures and higher polygon counts) this isn't that far off of the tech used in games like battlefield or halo.
True it is a demo but this demo took 10 minutes, well make the game 100 times longer and the file size is still only 9.37Mb (9600 kilobytes), ad 300Mb for good sounds, maybe pad on a couple extra Mbs for in game cinematic(using the game engine) and this game would still easily fit on a normal CDrom.
My point still stands that 4 DVD is really unnecessary and shows lazy optimization.
High-res textures and higher polygon counts causing more disks? That is kind of hard to believe. In general even if a model is very poly that shouldn't take up too much space. If they really need more then one DVD for models and textures they need to learn about data management. There are lots of ways to reuse texture and make the games look good.
To me it seems like the problem is video based. Videos take up a lot of space on a disk, especially since they now have to be HD videos. They should rely less on pre rendering thing and think about scripting things with the game engine.
Games should not have to use 40 Gigs of space. Look at kkrieger (can be found at http://www.theprodukkt.com/). This is a first person shooter demo that is on par with most first person shooters today, and it only takes 96 kilobytes. That can fit on a floppy disk!
If you need more then a DVD for your game there is defiantly a ton of optimizing you can do.
Oh of course these degree programs are complete bull... why should we think that a degree that involves classes like calculus, artificial intelligence, C++ programming, 3d asset production, creative writing and behavioral science would involve any type of learning process and teach people skills that would make them an asset to the computer business world.
Seriously though, putting down degrees that are based on video games is wrong and usually completely biased. Most colleges that are offering "game design" degrees are actually offering "game development" degrees, "game design" is just a label. These game design degrees are usualy similar to a computer science degree's but the programming and computer theories taught are more focused on interactive real time programming rather then business applications. There are of course exceptions to this where the game degree is actually closer to a creative writing degree as well. But that seems to be in the minority.
Most people who bash the game degrees just want to make themselves look superior for some reasons. It happens with computer science grads too.
Strip clubs and pornography and lost their first amendment rights. To have fist amendment right a work must contain a serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This was decided on in the case Miller v. California No. 70-73 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 413 U.S. 15.
Video games do contain serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Even the infamous Grand Theft Auto 3 San Andreas will fit under that definition. Here is a plot summary for those of you who want this game censored "A family tragedy prompts a man to return home, only to find it overrun by crime and corruption, which he must regain control of the streets before it gets even worse."
This bill does not use a ratings board or a pre set standards process. The ESRB is not being used. The way that this is worded just about any video game could be placed under legal reproductions.
HB4023 - 2 - LRB094 11300 RLC 42106 b
19 (e) "Violent" video games include realistic depictions of
20 human-on-human violence in which the player kills, seriously
21 injures, or otherwise causes serious physical harm to another
22 human, including but not limited to depictions of death,
24 disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape.
HB4023 - 4 - LRB094 11300 RLC 42106 b
7 (e) "Sexually explicit" video games include those that the
8 average person, applying contemporary community standards
9 would find, with respect to minors, is designed to appeal or
10 pander to the prurient interest and depicts or represents in a
11 manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or
12 simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated
13 normal or perverted sexual act or a lewd exhibition of the
14 genitals or post-pubescent female breast.
The fact that games can be picked as violent or "Sexually explicit" after they have been released is a big determining factor and game companies will feel obligated to write games that don't even have a chance at getting gobbled up by this law.
And the fact that it is not using a ratings board or a pre set standards process is why I believe it could allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity for video games.
It is important to note that the Lamont case did not center around a law that explicitly outlawed speech; a "chilling effect" can exist even when there is no explicit prohibition of speech in the law at all. In the original decision, the criterion was that the law have a "deterrent effect" on freedom of expression. In general, "chilling effect" is often used in reference to laws or actions that do not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech, but that impose undue burdens.
Limiting the sales of offensive material is unconstitutional because of "chilling effect."
From Wikipedia:
" A chilling effect is a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group. For example, the threat of a costly and lengthy lawsuit might prompt self-censorship and have a chilling effect on free speech.
In United States law, chilling effects refer to the stifling effect that vague or overbroad laws may have on legitimate speech and activity typically protected by the First Amendment."
Making it illegal to sell video games in many outlets would defiantly create a "chilling effect" on video games and it therefore is against developer's freedom of speech. Developers will feel obligated to avoid any adult content (be it violence, mature plot lines, sexual content) for multiple reasons.
First, developers are now going to feel obligated to make games for people of all ages only, rather then making games targeting adults, to avoid their game being pushed into a back room somewhere. Financially having good shelf space or location in arcades is very important.
Secondly, developers will avoid this content because of the legal reproductions that are possible. When the game ships it could be seen as good enough for all audiences by the majority of public but later when the public opinion shifts what was once alright could then be considered offensive and therefore must be limited and have legal reproductions. This creates a system that is subjective and open to change depending on who is deciding weather the game is only for adults or not and makes creating games for adults a legally scary situation.
Third, I believe this will allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity for video games. Because of the statement below statement this will allow games to be removed because of ideals or mentalities. For example say there is currently a war going on and a video game comes out with a strong anti government theme. Perhaps you are organizing protests against the country and using underhanded political tactics to undermine the government in order to evoke a revolt (like in the game "Republic: The Revolution"). Because the government is currently active in a controversial situation it could be seen that this game is instilling anarchy in our youth and should not be sold. It's not hard to say something doesn't have a "scientific value" literary, artistically, or politically when the ideals given are controversial.
This is most defiantly unconstitutional as the case Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S.Ct. 1493 (1965) set the precedence.
"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
You are missing a big point though. Just because the 1st party console companies can ride it out doesn't mean every one can. If there is a big lull in the market for any reason it's the 3rd party developers that are going to have a biggest problems. The big one like EA and Activision can bank roll their companies for a while but what about all the other ones? Do you really think that companies like Lion Head, Raven, or any company other then EA and Activision have too much of a shot at staying in business if they don't make a profit for a year or two?
If there is going to be a gaming crash the big companies will be able to survive it. But the small companies will all disappear.
There are defiantly some negatives that can come from this.
What is retailer's reaction to this going to be? Wal-Mart target and just about every other retailer already refuse to carry Ao games. Will this law make them extend this policy to M games as well? If it does, this would be very bad for the video game industry. That would make it necessary for video games to be created T and lower only. You can not survive in the consol market if the chair retailers don't carry your product.
What will the developer's reactions to this going to be? There will defiantly be a lot less game made for adult audiences after this. Game developers will not want to risk their games being pulled off the shelves, or moved into a back room, because some parental organization determines that it's not good for little Johnny.
Also what would this do to the public image of the video game industry? It is already very difficult for games to be recognized as literature or intelligent forms of entertainment in the games vs. art debate. How will this make video games look? Will it put video games in two camps of child's toy and pornography or will this help push games as mature entertainment?
We still have to wait to read the actual terms of each of the bills to see how it will finally work. But there is room for bad things. Even if a law is made that seems good to begin with, it is really easy to edit the law or interpret it incorrectly and make it terrible for games.
The game industry coming to a crash may be true. But it won't be because people dislike having so many sequels or licensed products. Having so many sequels is more of a symptom then a cause. The cause that I see could cause the game industry to fall a bit is money and time.
Games are getting more and more expensive to make. More technologies are required. More people are needed, development times are increasing and now the people making games are even demanding to be treated like people and get time off. Marketing for games is getting exponentially more expensive to reach the larger target audiences. Security for game is increasing to combat against piracy. Also games are requiring additional continuing costs for server maintenance and patch work. That is a lot of money necessary to make a game work in today's market.
To combat these increasing costs game companies have been trying quite a few things. Prices of games are rising, adding advertisements to games brings in some revenue, and sequels and licensed products guarantee a certain amount of return revenue. But everything the game industry does to increase the return of a game just is not keeping up with the pace of the cost increase to create a game.
Eventually game companies just won't be able to keep up and will have to close down. When enough of the companies shut down a lot of the previously mentioned costs will drop. Games will get simpler again, there will be less competition for marketing, technologies will get cheaper, and hopefully piracy will drop down when games get more affordable. When that happens small companies will be able to compete in the industry again and the industry will enter into another climb.
Rent it first is only a good idea half of the time. Living purely by this rule means you will never get independent or games that have little advertising budgets.
More often then not places that you can rent games from will not have a lot of the games that you want to try out. For example, Katamari Damacy was not available to be rented until the industry was already screaming rave reviews. Or a different example, Guitar Hero, the game is getting nothing but great reviews but no one carries it for rental.
Generally renters won't get the title in unless it already has a following. They don't want to get burned by a bad title either.
If you live by this rule there are going to be a lot of great games that you miss.
This isn't supposed to be about what was great this year. The 2006 inductees doesn't mean they were given a award for what they did in 2006, but is saying they were given the award in 2006 for what they did. This is supposed to be about what made an impact on the industry and you can't know if something is important to the industry as a whole when it was just released. You have to let people show how much they like it, watch if other companies follow their lead, and make sure it has a lasting appeal to know it is really important or not.
If you want a "what was great this year" look up one of the yearly award lists put up by just about every game webpage, or if you like to base purely on advertising popularity watch the spike awards.
And honestly I think all of this year's inductees deserve a star. They all made definite lasting impacts on the industry as a whole.
Honestly the only inductee that has been given a star that I contest is halo. You should have to prove you have lasting power before being put on a star. I don't think anyone will care that halo existed in 5 years. I don't really think that it influenced the industry all that much either. It was just another shooter that got a big push. If it wasn't made, there would have been another shooter taking the same glory, there wasn't really anything uniquely special about it.
Some games are art, not all of them.
on
But Is It Art?
·
· Score: 1
Games are just like any other type of media. Some of it is art, some of it is craft, and others are just there for entertainment.
I don't think all game should be considered art. I don't think there is a way that would be possible. You're not going to play a game of Madden and have it challenge you're beliefs. Some games are just be made for the sake of entertainment and the creators of those games are not trying to create art. There is always going to be an audience for those types of games and the industry needs them.
The closest relation to games would probably be the movie industry. Many movies come out every year but very few of them could truly be considered art. Most movies are just meant to bring people into the theater, engage them for 2 hours, and let them go. The viewer was entertained but nothing really happened. The movie didn't change them in any way. It didn't challenge them, it simply entertained them. But every now and then, there are movies that really standout and leave you thinking afterwards and still entertain you in the process.
This is what I want to happen with some games. I want there to be more games that when the player finishes they are left thinking afterwards (in a good way). There are a few games out there that I do really believe are on the edge of becoming art (some of the Final Fantasy series, Eternal Darkness, the Metal Gear series, the Longest Journey), however there is still a long way to go before games can be accepted by the general public as art.
Re:What's wrong with games just they way they are.
on
But Is It Art?
·
· Score: 1
That is the most idiotic comment I have read in a while. That is like saying "hey, I can use a hammer, I must know everything that an architect knows." If all you know is how to make a random number guessing game then you know nothing about how to make games yet.
Do you know what polymorphism is? Do you know how to use Huffman compression on your files? Do you know how many polys is acceptable for a character model that is used in the background of a level? Do you know how to use recursive functions to do A* path finding thought a level? How about even displaying a circle to the screen, do you know that?
There is a lot of work that go into making games and it is a very challenging field to be in and your comment is very insulting.
Why is it that every time there is a final fantasy game coming out people complain about the fact that there is only a single plot. The single plot lines and numerous cut scenes where the user just watched and learned about a character and partially limited worlds have always been part of Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy games have always been interactive stories more then create your own adventure. Final Fantasy games are more like reading a fantasy book. You are there to experience the story that the creator put out for you, not to create your own.
Personally I like interactive stories like Final Fantasy. The creators are telling you a story and you control the action of one or a few of the characters. Having even partial control over the characters lets you become more engrossed into the character and care about them. This can let you have a higher emotional investment into the plot. The game is based on the story. The creators don't give you control over the major plot lines because if they did, then they wouldn't be telling you a story any more.
There is room to have both RPGs where the user plays a character how he wants it and has complete control over the progress of the game and RPGs where the user is given a story to follow. If you don't like story based games that have a single plot line, don't play Final Fantasy and stop complaining about it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's 10% of the entire retail market. Not the video game market. In the video game market Wal-Mart has more around 25% market share. That's 1 out of every 4 games sold are sold from Wal-Mart.
1 &page=0
So when you think about this in mass numbers Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2) made 5.1 million. Cut Wal-Mart out of the loop they may have only made 3.8 million.
There was never a question of making this an anti trust case, because it's not. But, that is a huge chuck of sales and no business man is going to tell you to ignore ¼ of you potential market and that is why Wal-Mart is a driving force in the game industry.
Sources:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8409492/
http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=36598
http://www.npd.com/press.main.html
I may be in the minority on this but I would like more detailed field/industry categories. Just because I know C++ doesn't mean I want to code tax software. And just because I did QA work on Madden doesn't mean I want to QA yacht off board motor / ground terrain monitoring systems
This should filter employer replies as well. I would like to say don't allow employers in the following fields... to contact me.
Not that I think there is anything wrong with other industries. I'm just not interested in them right now and don't want to waist time for both of us.
There is a good reason for that actually.
Ao = pornography. Or at least that is the way it is treated. If you get rated by the ESRB as an Ao title you can not sell your game. Retailers won't sell it at all. You will rely on internet sails as your only source of revenue.
Also the ESRB is not free. Developers have to pay to get their games rated by them. Games that would get rated Ao (pornographic games) don't get rated because they don't feel like throwing away the money. It is the same way with movies. People who make pornographic movies don't bother to have the movie rated either. They know it.
When you know that your product is not supposed to be available for mass audience there is no reason to take the steps to prove it.
Last time I looked there wasn't an option to rape people in GTA as well
Killing: yes.
Prostitution: yes.
Simulated sex scenes where the parties are still clothed: After using a hack to access, yes.
Rape: no.
Comparing video game to movies and books isn't a good test honestly. They have completely different types of content.
Video games are closer to television then they are to books or movies in term of content. Movies and books have long interwoven stories that are built on character development and plot twists for entertainment. Because video games give the player choices plot twists are more difficult to pull of without making the player feel like they have no control. Television and video game have much different paths to follow for entertainment.
Sports broadcasts: Sports games
Cartoons: Platformers
Documentaries: historical games
Reality TV: the Sims
Dramas and thrillers: adventure games and action games
Sci fi and fantasy shows: RPGs
So to me the better comparison for games writing would be the writers for television shows.
You don't watch The Kids Next Door, Ed Edd and Eddie, or Totally Spies for the plot, just like you don't play Mario, Ratchet and Clank, or Jak and Daxter for the plot either. If you're watching TV for a plot you watch shows like 24 or lost, if you are playing games for the plot you play games like the longest journey or killer 7. Just like television not all the writers are that great, but there are some good ones, and they are getting better.
Although television is closer it is still not a perfect comparison. In television the viewer has no control and this gives e writers a lot les to worry about. A script writer never has to worry about "what if the protagonist decides not to peruse the antagonist." They know that the protagonist will do it because they say he will. In games to more choices you take away from the player the less they feel they are playing the game and more they feel they are watching the game. It's a hard balance to maintain and it is a challenge that is pretty unique to writing for games.
I played the game and every time I did anything immoral or involving unsocial behavior I don't remember getting rewarded for it. In fact I remember having people trying to arrest or attack me when I did anything like that. I don't remember getting rewarded for anything other then finishing the missions and the missions in this game are mundane every day activities.
Really it seems like the game rewarded you for doing the mundane and punished you for doing something violent or antisocial.
Kind of seems like the game was showing consequences for your action. And really what consequences are there for charity, commerce, and altruism. Should they implement a contemptuousness and self-admiration meter?
So really I don't see your argument. Having good deeds go unrewarded seems true to life.
This is still really good news for the people who shop on Ebay for copies of these more rare games. I know when I was shopping for a copy of Gitaroo man it was always going for around $70. The prices have dropped now I'm guessing that this is one of the reasons.
In the end this should be really good for the cult games. There are a lot of games that don't make it as a hit out the gate because they are under advertised but later gain fans from word of mouth. Doing this type of thing will help those titles out greatly. This could help good games made by small companies that can't afford big advertising budgets get some recognition.
This shouldn't come as a surprise really. In many Asian nations there have been adult themed games for years. (Look up H-Games on wiki) Making an organization and conference determining ways tat the American market can do a similar thing seems logical.
My only real concern is, what will this type of thing do to the non pornographic games? This could push it either way. Once something has been deemed pornographic the people purchasing them must be carded for proof of age by current pornography laws, perhaps that will be enough when people see examples of truly adult games. On the other hand once there are a few games out that are deemed pornographic it may give a big enough window to get those video game censorship laws passed.
Your right, this isn't news. It is an advertisement.
Is it just me or has this game gotten way more media time then anything else? I'm sure the guys in the marketing team are doing a good job but it seems like it is more then that. The media has grabbed this title like it is the next coming of Jesus.
To be quite honest. This has been pushed so much I was kinda hoping it would flop.
I feel the same way. I really like the company and I agree with what they are saying, but it does seem like too much of a risk. I might buy a few stocks out of support, but nothing that I would be afraid of loosing.
I would have to say that comes from the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing
That is why I used the qualifier "most" obviously F.E.A.R., Doom 3, Half life 2 and that type are much more impressive. But the majority of FPSs are not as impressive. As to what the article was talking about (High-res textures and higher polygon counts) this isn't that far off of the tech used in games like battlefield or halo.
True it is a demo but this demo took 10 minutes, well make the game 100 times longer and the file size is still only 9.37Mb (9600 kilobytes), ad 300Mb for good sounds, maybe pad on a couple extra Mbs for in game cinematic(using the game engine) and this game would still easily fit on a normal CDrom.
My point still stands that 4 DVD is really unnecessary and shows lazy optimization.
High-res textures and higher polygon counts causing more disks? That is kind of hard to believe. In general even if a model is very poly that shouldn't take up too much space. If they really need more then one DVD for models and textures they need to learn about data management. There are lots of ways to reuse texture and make the games look good.
To me it seems like the problem is video based. Videos take up a lot of space on a disk, especially since they now have to be HD videos. They should rely less on pre rendering thing and think about scripting things with the game engine.
Games should not have to use 40 Gigs of space. Look at kkrieger (can be found at http://www.theprodukkt.com/). This is a first person shooter demo that is on par with most first person shooters today, and it only takes 96 kilobytes. That can fit on a floppy disk!
If you need more then a DVD for your game there is defiantly a ton of optimizing you can do.
Oh of course these degree programs are complete bull... why should we think that a degree that involves classes like calculus, artificial intelligence, C++ programming, 3d asset production, creative writing and behavioral science would involve any type of learning process and teach people skills that would make them an asset to the computer business world.
Seriously though, putting down degrees that are based on video games is wrong and usually completely biased. Most colleges that are offering "game design" degrees are actually offering "game development" degrees, "game design" is just a label. These game design degrees are usualy similar to a computer science degree's but the programming and computer theories taught are more focused on interactive real time programming rather then business applications. There are of course exceptions to this where the game degree is actually closer to a creative writing degree as well. But that seems to be in the minority.
Most people who bash the game degrees just want to make themselves look superior for some reasons. It happens with computer science grads too.
Video games do contain serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Even the infamous Grand Theft Auto 3 San Andreas will fit under that definition. Here is a plot summary for those of you who want this game censored "A family tragedy prompts a man to return home, only to find it overrun by crime and corruption, which he must regain control of the streets before it gets even worse."
This bill does not use a ratings board or a pre set standards process. The ESRB is not being used. The way that this is worded just about any video game could be placed under legal reproductions.
The fact that games can be picked as violent or "Sexually explicit" after they have been released is a big determining factor and game companies will feel obligated to write games that don't even have a chance at getting gobbled up by this law.
And the fact that it is not using a ratings board or a pre set standards process is why I believe it could allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity for video games.
From Wikipedia:
Making it illegal to sell video games in many outlets would defiantly create a "chilling effect" on video games and it therefore is against developer's freedom of speech. Developers will feel obligated to avoid any adult content (be it violence, mature plot lines, sexual content) for multiple reasons.
First, developers are now going to feel obligated to make games for people of all ages only, rather then making games targeting adults, to avoid their game being pushed into a back room somewhere. Financially having good shelf space or location in arcades is very important.
Secondly, developers will avoid this content because of the legal reproductions that are possible. When the game ships it could be seen as good enough for all audiences by the majority of public but later when the public opinion shifts what was once alright could then be considered offensive and therefore must be limited and have legal reproductions. This creates a system that is subjective and open to change depending on who is deciding weather the game is only for adults or not and makes creating games for adults a legally scary situation.
Third, I believe this will allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity for video games. Because of the statement below statement this will allow games to be removed because of ideals or mentalities. For example say there is currently a war going on and a video game comes out with a strong anti government theme. Perhaps you are organizing protests against the country and using underhanded political tactics to undermine the government in order to evoke a revolt (like in the game "Republic: The Revolution"). Because the government is currently active in a controversial situation it could be seen that this game is instilling anarchy in our youth and should not be sold. It's not hard to say something doesn't have a "scientific value" literary, artistically, or politically when the ideals given are controversial.
This is most defiantly unconstitutional as the case Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S.Ct. 1493 (1965) set the precedence.
"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
You are missing a big point though. Just because the 1st party console companies can ride it out doesn't mean every one can. If there is a big lull in the market for any reason it's the 3rd party developers that are going to have a biggest problems. The big one like EA and Activision can bank roll their companies for a while but what about all the other ones? Do you really think that companies like Lion Head, Raven, or any company other then EA and Activision have too much of a shot at staying in business if they don't make a profit for a year or two?
If there is going to be a gaming crash the big companies will be able to survive it. But the small companies will all disappear.
There are defiantly some negatives that can come from this.
What is retailer's reaction to this going to be? Wal-Mart target and just about every other retailer already refuse to carry Ao games. Will this law make them extend this policy to M games as well? If it does, this would be very bad for the video game industry. That would make it necessary for video games to be created T and lower only. You can not survive in the consol market if the chair retailers don't carry your product.
What will the developer's reactions to this going to be? There will defiantly be a lot less game made for adult audiences after this. Game developers will not want to risk their games being pulled off the shelves, or moved into a back room, because some parental organization determines that it's not good for little Johnny.
Also what would this do to the public image of the video game industry? It is already very difficult for games to be recognized as literature or intelligent forms of entertainment in the games vs. art debate. How will this make video games look? Will it put video games in two camps of child's toy and pornography or will this help push games as mature entertainment?
We still have to wait to read the actual terms of each of the bills to see how it will finally work. But there is room for bad things. Even if a law is made that seems good to begin with, it is really easy to edit the law or interpret it incorrectly and make it terrible for games.
The game industry coming to a crash may be true. But it won't be because people dislike having so many sequels or licensed products. Having so many sequels is more of a symptom then a cause. The cause that I see could cause the game industry to fall a bit is money and time.
Games are getting more and more expensive to make. More technologies are required. More people are needed, development times are increasing and now the people making games are even demanding to be treated like people and get time off. Marketing for games is getting exponentially more expensive to reach the larger target audiences. Security for game is increasing to combat against piracy. Also games are requiring additional continuing costs for server maintenance and patch work. That is a lot of money necessary to make a game work in today's market.
To combat these increasing costs game companies have been trying quite a few things. Prices of games are rising, adding advertisements to games brings in some revenue, and sequels and licensed products guarantee a certain amount of return revenue. But everything the game industry does to increase the return of a game just is not keeping up with the pace of the cost increase to create a game.
Eventually game companies just won't be able to keep up and will have to close down. When enough of the companies shut down a lot of the previously mentioned costs will drop. Games will get simpler again, there will be less competition for marketing, technologies will get cheaper, and hopefully piracy will drop down when games get more affordable. When that happens small companies will be able to compete in the industry again and the industry will enter into another climb.
I really do hope it happens actually.
Rent it first is only a good idea half of the time. Living purely by this rule means you will never get independent or games that have little advertising budgets.
More often then not places that you can rent games from will not have a lot of the games that you want to try out. For example, Katamari Damacy was not available to be rented until the industry was already screaming rave reviews. Or a different example, Guitar Hero, the game is getting nothing but great reviews but no one carries it for rental.
Generally renters won't get the title in unless it already has a following. They don't want to get burned by a bad title either.
If you live by this rule there are going to be a lot of great games that you miss.
This isn't supposed to be about what was great this year. The 2006 inductees doesn't mean they were given a award for what they did in 2006, but is saying they were given the award in 2006 for what they did. This is supposed to be about what made an impact on the industry and you can't know if something is important to the industry as a whole when it was just released. You have to let people show how much they like it, watch if other companies follow their lead, and make sure it has a lasting appeal to know it is really important or not.
If you want a "what was great this year" look up one of the yearly award lists put up by just about every game webpage, or if you like to base purely on advertising popularity watch the spike awards.
And honestly I think all of this year's inductees deserve a star. They all made definite lasting impacts on the industry as a whole.
Honestly the only inductee that has been given a star that I contest is halo. You should have to prove you have lasting power before being put on a star. I don't think anyone will care that halo existed in 5 years. I don't really think that it influenced the industry all that much either. It was just another shooter that got a big push. If it wasn't made, there would have been another shooter taking the same glory, there wasn't really anything uniquely special about it.
Games are just like any other type of media. Some of it is art, some of it is craft, and others are just there for entertainment.
I don't think all game should be considered art. I don't think there is a way that would be possible. You're not going to play a game of Madden and have it challenge you're beliefs. Some games are just be made for the sake of entertainment and the creators of those games are not trying to create art. There is always going to be an audience for those types of games and the industry needs them.
The closest relation to games would probably be the movie industry. Many movies come out every year but very few of them could truly be considered art. Most movies are just meant to bring people into the theater, engage them for 2 hours, and let them go. The viewer was entertained but nothing really happened. The movie didn't change them in any way. It didn't challenge them, it simply entertained them. But every now and then, there are movies that really standout and leave you thinking afterwards and still entertain you in the process.
This is what I want to happen with some games. I want there to be more games that when the player finishes they are left thinking afterwards (in a good way). There are a few games out there that I do really believe are on the edge of becoming art (some of the Final Fantasy series, Eternal Darkness, the Metal Gear series, the Longest Journey), however there is still a long way to go before games can be accepted by the general public as art.
That is the most idiotic comment I have read in a while. That is like saying "hey, I can use a hammer, I must know everything that an architect knows." If all you know is how to make a random number guessing game then you know nothing about how to make games yet.
Do you know what polymorphism is? Do you know how to use Huffman compression on your files? Do you know how many polys is acceptable for a character model that is used in the background of a level? Do you know how to use recursive functions to do A* path finding thought a level? How about even displaying a circle to the screen, do you know that?
There is a lot of work that go into making games and it is a very challenging field to be in and your comment is very insulting.
Why hasn't this been marked troll yet?
Why is it that every time there is a final fantasy game coming out people complain about the fact that there is only a single plot. The single plot lines and numerous cut scenes where the user just watched and learned about a character and partially limited worlds have always been part of Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy games have always been interactive stories more then create your own adventure. Final Fantasy games are more like reading a fantasy book. You are there to experience the story that the creator put out for you, not to create your own.
Personally I like interactive stories like Final Fantasy. The creators are telling you a story and you control the action of one or a few of the characters. Having even partial control over the characters lets you become more engrossed into the character and care about them. This can let you have a higher emotional investment into the plot. The game is based on the story. The creators don't give you control over the major plot lines because if they did, then they wouldn't be telling you a story any more.
There is room to have both RPGs where the user plays a character how he wants it and has complete control over the progress of the game and RPGs where the user is given a story to follow. If you don't like story based games that have a single plot line, don't play Final Fantasy and stop complaining about it.