The Targeting Of the Gaming Industry Is More Than What It Seems

Good afternoon folks.

Reading a thread entitled: Teen Killed Family, Planned Shooting Spree, Not Allowed Access To Violent Media Or Games!, an interesting idea formed.

What if the scrutiny of the video game industry, or at least it's violent side, it's just fodder for something a bit more nefarious?

Let's take a look at what the gaming community in general is about to do to revolutionize that entire industry. A growing trend among developers is to forgo the historical model of using large publishing companies to get their games out.

There are a variety of reasons you would do this:

1. Creative control
2. Time constraints lessen considerably.
3.Wider Market Share possible with cross platforming.
4. IP rights.

There are more, but those are the major ones. The one major drawback however, is the lack of funding you will need to replace by not accepting a publisher's offer.

Enter Kickstarter. One of many online communities that encourage crowd sourced funding. The gamer pays for the development of the game. Not only have many projects been very successful in this model since it's popularity increased a few years ago, but a lot of it is being built open source.

Open source is a bit of a problem for not only publishers but also hardware manufacturers like Samsung and Apple for example who might start looking into getting into the gaming realm. Many new, small companies are being built up around the idea of open source and large companies will never be able to compete with a free market vs pay for content.

Now we can all agree that the average price of digital media is staggering and far too high for what you get out of said media in most cases. Creating a mostly free alternative with the option of purchasing extra content solves that problem.

So, what I am getting at is that by imposing more costs or limitations to the gaming industry will only help those who are big business and want to make sure that the status-quo is being maintained. Companies like Microsoft and Sony have NO reason to support free to play platforms when they are making money hand over fist in overpriced hardware and software.

So what do you think fellow ATS members? Do you think this is somewhat of a power play by the corporate gaming industry to crush the rising tide of freed to play and open source?

~Tenth

I have seen two things that jump out about the gaming industry related to it being targeted at this time. First would be the one everybody knows about I guess. The advertising and linking to gun manufacturers. Don't forget the government started the trend with advertising for the military on billboards in car games. FBI even advertised. Then the gun manufactures pushed to have there weapons used and then linked to the manufacture and find your nearest store to order.

The second part would be Sony being hacked by Anonymous? Strange that the outcome of that was a US General was then placed in charge of security for Sony. And this was a general who was in charge of Cyber Command for the US government and was also involved in propaganda during the Cols War with Russia. Were they mad about Sony Playstations being used as super computers. They held the tech back in computers for ever but they forgot to control the video game systems that were then used. Wikileaks built a few and our own military even built one to see what they were up against.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Some games are rely out there in the content and actions they permit players to engage, even as adults, in some the moral compass is inexistent or even degrading to the audience.

Now if targeted to an adult audience I do not see a need for censorship but I do see a need for a rating system that is truly policed and valid to all games even as to avoid the player being surprised by content that he may object (from racial attacks, to religious offenses etc) if the industry is failing in providing a transparent and standard way to inform consumers. Sales of adult games to minors should also be sanctioned.

In games directed at kids and juveniles there is indeed an excess of "creative liberty" (I do have an hard time classifying some of the content as being creative, since it seems to be intentionally created to be chocking or culturally and morally objectionable). This mimics the same type of content that is also being generated by some cartoons and animation, even as an adult I've seen for instance episodes of Cow and chicken and other products for instance from Nickelodeon that I wouldn't approve a child to see and I think it would even affect negatively a teenager, some games seem to replicate and promote the same ideology.

Being a parent is already a very demanding activity in both time and responsibility, I do not see any issue in making sure that some content be expressly restricted to parental approval in fact more stuff should be require the parent's input and not rely simply in acquiescence, from school programs to public broadcasts.

Video games serve as a necessary relief valve, allowing gamers to reduce their stress by taking out their frustrations on a digital surrogate.

Just like the therapist, asking you to speak to the teddy bear as if it were the father who abused you, even permitting you to hit the bear in order to work through the anger and guilt and whatever you you feel, so that you DONT DO IT TO SOMEONE IN REAL LIFE.

That bear didn't do anything to you, but in imagining that it you, you express yourself in a way that is both healthy and encourage by mental health professionals.

So why the HELL aren't they speaking up here?

reply to post by Panic2k11


Those costs should not be passed down to the consumer however. If the government and bureaucrats want stronger control for content, then they need to provide the remedy.

They certainly don't enforce censorship on MTV, or television in general, nor do any theaters usually check ID for 18+ rated films.

The whole idea of restricting content by age is nonsense anyway. Every individual matures at a different rate, and my 15 year old can be exposed to things that may harm your 15 year old, but won't mine.

~Tenth

I really really hate when they use video games as an excuse when it comes to violent when we see so more worse coming from movies and television every second of the day.

I seem to recall a certain president used video games to advertise for his election, using them to solicit donations.

Just an interesting thought I would interject.

And, some of those games could be deemed "violent".

www.foxnews.com...

www.pbs.org...

www.npr.org...

cleveland.cbslocal.com...

reply to post by tothetenthpower


open source and crowd funding are the way of the future,
where you get to support a project from ground up you get personal "buy in" to the project.
the simple truth is the "gate keeper model" cannot work in the long term as it becomes a medium for control,
the freedom experienced from the internet generation is now spilling over into the "physical world" in attitudes and co-operation.

open source is more important than anyone realises, and without it everything online would be locked down over time.
with a small group ultimately controlling the very essence of online freedom, and restricting its purpose for mere profit,

it is the case that the publishers of old will be the last to realise that innovations of the future will come from groups of gamers and programmers exploiting the free and open nature of the net, and will be more interested in the creation than the profit of innovation.

when disruptive business models come along as they always do, the old gate keepers try to influence laws and statutes to regulate competition to continue the hold they had previously enjoyed over the end user of the product.

but when products can be funded, and distributed directly to the consumer at lower prices market forces take over and the innovation out competes the big publishers and ultimately larger numbers of consumers can access the products for lower prices.

this economic effect can take away some of the "risk" of investing in tittles and hardware, as you can gauge "beforehand" demand.

when you can really "own" your own copy, rather than lease a copy you have more rights and freedoms to enjoy the product.

the "locked down" hardware and "leased" software model actually slows down innovation and costs more to use.

the reason that open source software projects have increased by 50% in the last year and a new open source hardware foundation has been created is because people have the taste of freedom,

the ability to "own" instead of "use" technology has entered the minds of the people,
and when open source "platforms" compete with "walled gardens" you find people are actually resentful of being forced to be "users" rather than owner and operators of technology under their position.

an open source idea, weather hardware or software conveys ownership to the individual using it.

this is an important point going forward as people become more aware that without open source alternatives,
we will have no option to sign what ever agreement or "contract" however evil that is presented to us.

if one of my algorithms was commercialised, you would pay with either money, "upfront" or pay with privacy loss over time.
but by open sourcing the idea, any one can use it with very little limitations, and a "free" web is possible.

open source = freedom from having to pay money or "pay" with loss of privacy to pay for use of innovations.

the design structure of the world wide web is open source, and therefore free for use by everyone,
and the barrier to entry is much lower.

in the future there will be remote robotic surgery available using open source protocols and open source surgical robots that will lower the cost of medical procedures. if this was only commercially available technology, less people would be able to afford the care they need.

this is but one area where the open source approach can and will change lives, and a good example of prices being driven down because of open competition and free market economics.

i hope to see a data base of surgeries that are commons licensed, and open sourced to enable higher education and better outcomes for patients.

at lower prices.

it is the market that should determine the acceptable price of goods and services, not yesterdays notion of scarce = higer prices.

ie
you can copy code for no cost and not lose the original copy, so lower the prices and engage with a larger consumer base for much larger profits, in software
and in hardware without expensive patent disputes the acual costs to produce and distribute goes down.

for these reasons i believe the old model will implode,
embrace the future, the open source future will simply out compete the wall gardens of yesteryear

xploder

reply to post by tothetenthpower


You bring up a good point. Further regulation (uugghh) only hurts those operating on a shoestring to begin with. The large corporations just drop off a bus load of lawyers at the courthouse/statehouse and get what they want.

However, I think the music industry illustrates an interesting parallel. As music became almost all on line content (all digital versus hard copy) the industry fought it tooth and nail. Instead of getting with the new game and gouging the public there, they wanted to stick with the old style gouging. The world passed them buy and they begrudgingly got with the program. My guess is they still make money yet independents still have an avenue to an audience which did not exist a decade or two ago. Could the gaming industry follow this same trail?

It isn't just about the games, it'll be all expression.

Games, movies, shows, books, songs, comics... anything. There will be a ministry of Vice and Virtue that will give it stamp of approval. W/O that stamp, you are flushed.

What video games did Hitler play? Stalin? Charles Whittman? Amin?

Just read the Bible, I mean really read it w/o applying any belief to it. It is all blood and guts. That next?

Remember 1984 and the wall screens... why you think we have smart tvs now, on line blu ray dvd & the info super hwy?

Derek

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Open source is a bit of a problem for not only publishers but also hardware manufacturers like Samsung and Apple for example who might start looking into getting into the gaming realm. Many new, small companies are being built up around the idea of open source and large companies will never be able to compete with a free market vs pay for content.

Now we can all agree that the average price of digital media is staggering and far too high for what you get out of said media in most cases. Creating a mostly free alternative with the option of purchasing extra content solves that problem.

So, what I am getting at is that by imposing more costs or limitations to the gaming industry will only help those who are big business and want to make sure that the status-quo is being maintained. Companies like Microsoft and Sony have NO reason to support free to play platforms when they are making money hand over fist in overpriced hardware and software.

So what do you think fellow ATS members? Do you think this is somewhat of a power play by the corporate gaming industry to crush the rising tide of freed to play and open source?

~Tenth

Well, first off did you even check into Sony before saying they are against the free to play model? They currently have 9 different online games that are free to play that have strong communities. Planetside 2 (awesome game, you should check it out), Everquest 1 & 2, DC Universe Online, Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Magic the Gathering - Tactics, Star Wars: Clone Wars Adventure, Free Realms, and PoxNora. This is all conveniently located on their site under their free to play section. Why do you think major developers would be against free to play models? If done right they can be much more profitable than subscription games. Generally speaking, with the free to play model you can bring in a lot more players who would be willing to pay for micro-transactions. Star Wars: The Old Republic (very disappointed in that game) went free to play after an abysmal kick off, BioWare sunk a lot of money into that with estimates being between 150-200 million for development costs. They still went free to play and BioWare is a major publisher.

Also, this part bugged me as well:

Now we can all agree that the average price of digital media is staggering and far too high for what you get out of said media in most cases. Creating a mostly free alternative with the option of purchasing extra content solves that problem.

Sorry for assuming, but if I get your thinking right you believe that on average $60 a game is too high for the content you get? Honestly I am thankful they are only $60 for the games, because my games for the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis cost the same. Can you honestly tell me any game produced today has less content in it than Sonic the Hedgehog? That was also in the 90's, so $60 was worth more to the average person back two decades ago after calculating for inflation to today's dollars. Not to mention even more money is sunk into games today for development costs, especially the great games, and yet the price has still remained the same for two decades to the consumer.

Also, games don't change peoples perceptions, I've always held the parents strongly responsible for that. Teaching kids the difference between reality and it is their job to make it so. It just seems to be a growing trend now as people want to blame others and say it's not their fault. You know, something like "my kid didn't learn how things work in life from me, it was the video games fault!". Lazy parents want games, TV, and everything else to do the parenting for them.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I have been playing video games since the first nintendo and genesis came out. I believe my first game was super mario bros. and Mike Tyson's Punch out. I can honestly say that I'm not brainwashed or ever felt like a game was making think toward hurting others or myself. I think when people point fingers and blame they are shunning they're ability to take responsibility for themselves.

The people doing the shootings are broken.That is all,guns videos?No. Broken people.you can't stop them by any current means but you can defend against them at the point of contact. No other option will work.
Video games are training fields for an autonomous military,they are no doubt protected covertly by the system to flourish.

reply to post by deathlord

Well, first off did you even check into Sony before saying they are against the free to play model?

That is NOT Sony's decision. Free to play is being offered by the publisher, and game developer, not the hardware manufacturer. Sony has nothing to do with price of services that aren't purchased via their portal, even then, the markup isn't enough to consider them a factor.

As for the bioware mention, they only went free to play because this allowed them to create advertising revenue and to have purchased content for players who want that little bit extra. Bioware is not a publisher.

All their games are published by other companies. Lucas Arts for KOTOR and Bethesda Softworks for all their proprietary IP's.

Not to mention even more money is sunk into games today for development costs, especially the great games, and yet the price has still remained the same for two decades to the consumer.

The costs of games is misleading. The reason that development costs is so high is because of all the companies involved. If you develop your game and then field it directly to the customer, sans publisher, you can drop the price of your game by 30 to 40%.

In the case of MMO's you cannot compare as a HUGE ammount of hardware and coding goes into creating a living breathing game space that millions enjoy all at once.

The vast majority of cost involved in production is marketing and distribution. Those aren't required anymore if you follow the Kickstarter model.

And yes, 60$ for a game that will take me between 15 to 20 hours to complete, then never touch again, is far too high. If I am going to buy digital media from you, I expect at least a 30hr experience minimum.

Some people think that's putting too much on developers, but I beg to disagree. Games of the past were made with the same budgets adjusted for inflation and were hundreds of hours of content and replay-ability.

We've come to expect mediocre products for the amount we pay, and don't even get me started on console hardware prices and their inflation for no good reason other than brand name.

The above isn't the point of the thread, but I wanted to address your points.

~Tenth

I don't like games or video gamers to be honest..it is about time someone did something about them.

Video games are one of the main causes of antisocial behavior in youth....the X-box has become synonymous with young, alcohol abusing and welfare receiving males..certainly not the type of person I wish to be around.

Furthermore, video games tend to be an escapist reality for young people which is a problem that also needs addressing. Finally, violent video games do desensitize children and young people to violence of all kinds, it is not the immediate shock of violence, but the long hours they spend being exposed to violence which is the main culprit. Video games normalize violence so to speak.

Been a gamer since pong, played everything from first person shooters, GTA, to online mmmo's. I would not let my kid play shooting games until they are of an age and responsibility that I think is appropriate. And that is the problem. The game industry rates their games. A lot of the games under fire are rated for adults. Young kids do not need to be exposed to the realistic violence that is present in some games. And its the parents damn fault. The parents who let the school, jersey shore, and game consoles raise their kids. The parents who let their 8 year old on the internet unrestricted on facebook and never check their mail or postings. The parents who never sit and eat dinner, help with the kids homework, stay active in the kids lives. Who thinks that kids have rights to total privacy. They are kids, and until they are 18, it is the parents responsibility to regulate, control, and raise those kids.

People are losing personal accountability. They don't take responsibility for their actions, or their kids actions. They cry to the government to regulate everything so they don't have to be a parent. When the kids fail, they change the rules to pass them anyway. We don't need the damn government raising our kids.

reply to post by QQXXw

Video games are one of the main causes of antisocial behavior in youth....the X-box has become synonymous with young, alcohol abusing and welfare receiving males..certainly not the type of person I wish to be around.

Please provide source material for your statements. Otherwise they are simply opinion and should be stated as such.

Furthermore, video games tend to be an escapist reality for young people which is a problem that also needs addressing. Finally, violent video games do desensitize children and young people to violence of all kinds, it is not the immediate shock of violence, but the long hours they spend being exposed to violence which is the main culprit. Video games normalize violence so to speak.

Actually simulated violence is far less impacting than realist violence found on TV and in movies. Please explain how TV and Movies aren't worse at desensitizing young ones to violence.

~Tenth

I can sum this up pretty simply:

NRA (in this case) are targeting the gaming industry because there is no "formal power group". Many fringe psychological groups tried to take on Hollywood claiming that movies caused people to be violent, they lost badly, because hollywood has vast resources (money) at their disposal.

So they know not to blame Hollywood, their next target, video games. Why? Everyone knows they exist, Shrinks have studied this for a while, and has studies that proves their point (probably shake and bake studies), but because the profits are 'shared' over many companies with no real formal council they are a soft target.

What they are not banking on is the major development and distribution houses all banding together to basically tell them to "get off our collective lawns"

This is about shifting blame, so they (gun control laws) are not responsible for these tragedies.

However i also do find it ironic that they produce a mobile app of a shooting range, take profits from that and then blame the dev houses for it.... Who would have thought?

Edit:

@QQXXw

Furthermore, video games tend to be an escapist reality for young people which is a problem that also needs addressing. Finally, violent video games do desensitize children and young people to violence of all kinds, it is not the immediate shock of violence, but the long hours they spend being exposed to violence which is the main culprit. Video games normalize violence so to speak.

There is no formal evidence that proves this:

For you - Controlled, and contained what i like to refer to as coincidence-less violence (read the article).

For - Games in general, centered more around educational and people skills

For NRA's argument. Read the entire article before commenting, especially the part at the bottom.

So lets look at this from a sociological standpoint;

Woman gets drunk and is involved in an accident, using the NRA's mentality, car manufacturer is at fault, so ban all cars.

Man gets drunk, and kicks someone at a bar, using the NRA's mentality, blame the shoe manufacturer because clearly if he didn't have shoes he wouldn't have kicked that person in the head.

However these cases are in the minority, i could also point out that human interaction can invoke violence:

Low selfesteem causes violence (Jan 1996)
Alcohol causes violence (Jan 1986)
More Alcohol causes violence (1990)
Social Interaction causes Violence (May 1991)

Perhaps we should all be put in bubbles...



Edit 2 - Above is to argue against the entire mentality that xxxxxx subject causes violence.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Agree mental age has little to do with chronological age, there is also the issue of the large decline in mental age of adults. Mental age to me consists on the realization of ones responsibility to himself and to others this includes at least the initiation of a process of self discovery and an understanding of the limits of personal freedom.

If the government and bureaucrats want stronger control for content, then they need to provide the remedy.

I don't think that is a question of the government wanting but see it as necessary barrier or protection to consumers, of course that the subject is often used as a political tool but the need for some control (not necessarily by the government).

They certainly don't enforce censorship on MTV, or television in general, nor do any theaters usually check ID for 18+ rated films.

Well that is the problem with self regulation, the goal of the entertainment industry is to make profit not provide a public service or cultural uplift. That is why if it doesn't work the government should force action.

The whole idea of restricting content by age is nonsense anyway.

As I said I agree but I also think we could agree that as a rule of thumb some key ages can be established (I wouldn't oppose the creation of some sort of exception to the age, like a maturity card).

reply to post by Spruk


Agree. Most of the discourser about civil violence has been extremely politicized and used as a platform to get attention or misdirect. The fact the the gaming industry has no real lobby or representative makes it a easy target...

The simple fact is that people use violence because they recognize that violence is the only thing that works especially for those that have no economic power or social visibility, and then there are the crazy ones and even those only reflect how sic society has become...