Double Dipping

Ok, there’s a subject that I want to throw my two cents in on.

There’s been a lot of hoo-ha recently about software bundled with the game “Battlefield 2142”.

Now, there’s been a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about this.

The problem was the belief that this game came with spyware. It would keep track of your internet browsing habits, and then download targeted advertising that would be put up on billboards and posters in the game.

In other words, if you spent all day looking at sports based websites, while playing the game, you would see billboards and posters for various sporting products.

The gaming community went up in arms. We don’t like to be spied on.

The truth is a little less extreme. All the ‘spyware’ does is send information about how long you looked at the in game advertisements. In other words, it’s to show the people who have paid for advertising just how many people are seeing them.

No personal information, nothing sinister…just the company who paid top dollar for in-game advertising wants to know if it was worth the investment.

However, I have a problem with this, and it’s nothing to do with my right to privacy.

My problem is the whole advertising thing.

Now, you may wonder what the big deal is. Is it really such a problem that while I’m running and gunning down a street I pass a poster advertising the latest graphics card from nVidia? Does it bother me that at the end of a street I see a billboard advertising Adidas sneakers?

No, my problem is this:

Games companies are making a lot of extra money through in-game advertisements, and we, the gamers, aren’t seeing a penny of it.

In game advertising means more revenue for the games studio…but while in-game advertising is steadily on the rise, so is the cost of the games we’re playing.

This should be the other way around. The games companies are slowly filling their games with advertisements. Wouldn’t it be fair for them to use some of that money they’re making from advertising to lower the price of the games a little?

Look at the TV business model. They don’t make money from the actual shows. The shows are just there to make sure we’re sitting in front of a TV when the advertisements start to play.

We’re not asked to pay for network TV, because the advertising pays for it.

If we continue this analogy with the direction videogames are slowly taking, it’s like paying a subscription to a movie channel, and having the movies interrupted with ads every 15 minutes.

Would you pay for that? I know I wouldn’t. Either I pay you, or the advertisers do…not both.

Fight Night: Round 3 costs $60, and that game is like one big Burger King commercial.

I mean, I’m all for games studios making money. The more money they have, the more games we’ll see. I’m not suggesting that if a game company chooses to have advertising in their game that they should deduct all the money they make from advertising from the game price…but why not a percentage?

In short, it’s unfair. Games are costing more and more, while games companies are making larger and larger profits.

In my opinion, It’s one of the downsides of games going mainstream. It’s no longer “By gamers, for gamers”, it’s so some guy in a suit, who has never held a controller in his life, can make more money.

Sigh...Part II

Well, today’s post is kinda a follow on from yesterday’s, but more on the subject of censorship than anything else.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, scandal and outrage equal fame and fortune. Making mountains out of mole-hills has become a genuine business model. Basically, you pick out something that has the potential to be slightly controversial, blow it out of all proportion, then set yourself up as the lone crusader, fighting against this ‘evil’.

This is why parents are suing schools for taking their children to art galleries and showing them classical statues of naked people; Why McDonalds is an evil corporation by ‘hiding’ the fact that eating fast food every day will make you fat…and why games companies have suddenly become criminal conspiracists, trying to force sex and violence on children.

Now, is there an argument to be made that some games are unsuitable for children? Absolutely. While I don’t believe that playing a violent video game will turn a normal kid into a rapist ormurderer in a million years, I accept that some material is simply unsuitable for minors.

I wouldn’t allow a five year old to watch ‘Goodfellas’, and I wouldn’t allow a five year old to play ‘Grand Theft Auto’.

I’m also willing to hold up my hands and admit that Rockstar Games was completely in the wrong over the whole ‘Hot Coffee’ thing. They should have either removed the offending material from the game completely, instead of making it innaccessable, or informed the ESRB that even though the content couldn’t be accessed without a non-official mod, that it was there.

Rockstar screwed up because they simply under-estimated their audience. It was like cutting a scene from a DVD by simply changing the scene menu. The content is still there, but under normal conditions, the viewer can’t access it

But, and this is my big point, GTA San Andreas was always rated for ages 17 and over. The whole uproar was about a very tame ‘sex’ scene (Fully clothed and no actual genitals) in a game rated for people over the legal age of consent.

Then, the upshot of this was that rating was changed from M for Mature, to AO for adults only. In other words, changing the rating from 17 years old and up, to 18 years old and up. The difference of a single year.

The uproar was that a game ‘appropriate’ for 18 year olds was rated as being appropriate for 17 year olds.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I was just as capable of ‘handling’ violent and sexual material at 17 as I was a year later at 18.

The other point is that the only real reason the games industry doesn’t want to get that Adults Only rating is because many major retailers simply refuse to stock Adults Only titles.

It’s ridiculous. Places like Wal-Mart and EB Games are essentially saying “We’re a family place, we’re willing to stock games where you can chainsaw people’s heads off….but we won’t show nipples! That’s obscene!”

Extreme violence is fine. Consensual ‘sex’ between what are essentially are two cartoon characters is wrong.

Personally, I find it weird that we’re in a culture where its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old to play a game where you remove bad-guy’s heads with a shotgun, but seeing a nipple is completely unacceptable

The overall problem, however, is the common mistake that games are for children. People automatically assume that any video game is for kids. This is simply not true. It was true back in the early 80’s…but today the average gamer is between 21 and 35 years old.

So people are suddenly made aware that some games contain violent and sexual images, and the games companies instantly become evil corporations peddling ‘filth’ to kids.

Like I said at the start of this post, it quickly becomes an over-reaction based on a faulty premise:

Games = Sex + Violence.

Games are for kids.

Games = Bad Thing.

Of course, you can turn around and say “Look, these games aren’t for kids, it says so right on the box.”

You can say that, but you’ll just be ignored by idiots like Jack Thompson who are desperate to make a name for themselves. (Apparently, Thompson believes that ESRB ratings are there to ‘market’ inappropriate content to kids…something so illogical that I’m not even going to bother trying to argue against it).

Basically, this ESRB bill is essentially saying one thing. The games companies can’t be trusted. They’re going to ‘hide’ inappropriate content, in order to get filth into the hands of children.

In the end, my solution to this problem is simple:

Any game that has an M rating should be ‘upgraded’ to an Adults Only rating. Considering this describes the vast majority of games, it would force games retailers to stock them, or they’d find themselves out of business.

Then, simply make it illegal to sell games to people not in the appropriate age range.

There, you have a cast iron defense.

If a child ends up playing an age-inappropriate game, it’s the fault of one of two people. The retailer, who would face legal action, or the parent who bought it, who should have checked the rating on the box before buying.

It is not the job of the government to say what adults can or can’t see, and it certainly isn’t their job to parent and supervise people’s children for them.

Any TV or video game system is ‘safe’ for children, as long as the parent controls what appears on it.

Your Questions Answered

Ok, I got a few comments today on a couple of my SL posts. Rather than reply on a week old post, I thought I’d talk about it here.

First, from MC Etcher:

“Is there a version of the Imperious Curse? You could send people's avatars out to earn cash for you. Or rent them as slaves. Are there any evil wizards that need subduing?

What about a detective agency? Is there anything to solve? Are there (volunteer or otherwise) police? Hmn, could I start a detective agency, then kidnap someone prominent to have a mystery to solve? For a sizable fee, of course, bwa ha ha!”

I really should not play this game.

If you want to pay for the land and build it, you can do pretty much anything you want. People have art galleries to showcase their RL paintings and use the gallery to sell prints. Other people have made museums making use of streaming video. Other people make clothing and in-game object stores

Of course, SL works mainly around the three S’s, Sex, Socializing and Shopping.

In other words, plenty of clubs, beaches, waterparks, malls and ‘adult video’ establishments.

As for a detective agency, it would be possible. Someone has a boyfriend or girlfriend on SL, and wants to know what their partner is getting up to when they’re not around to supervise.

As for bad wizards…

It depends entirely where you go. Most people on SL are just there to chat and have fun. They come on to go to a club or a beach, listen to the music and talk to people.

On the other hand, there are hardcore role-players. They create a character, and never break character while they’re playing. You get the Star-Trek guys, the Star Wars guys, the Lord of the Rings guys and the Harry Potter crowd. (There are hundreds more, but I think those are the main ones.)

Now, as Kato asked:

Anyway... with all this freedom in the world, what prevents people from massively griefing everyone through any manner of nasty thing (such as misusing the wand you purchased)?

Well, I can honestly say I was surprised at how little griefing went on in SL. Don’t get me wrong, there are assholes on SL, just like on any other MMO, but you have very few problems.

Here’s how it works. SL is divided up into ‘Sims’…in other words, smallish areas. Each sim is owned by a different person, and they set the rules for their Sim. Each owner has admin rights to their sim, and can grant admin rights to other players.

So, if I went into someone else’s sim, and started throwing players around, blasting them up into the air or out of the sim, it wouldn’t be five seconds before I got booted out myself.

If I returned and started doing the same thing, they’d just flat out ban me.

So, if you act like an asshole, you quickly find yourself not able to go anywhere.

But SL is a HUGE place and it would take you months to get banned from everywhere. This brings me to the rap sheet.

Basically, other players can lodge complaints against you for abusive behavior etc. You get enough complaints, you just get your whole account banned. You can just create a new account, but if you’re actually able to grief people, you’ve been in the game a fair amount of time and accumulated a lot of cash and possessions…which of course you’d lose.

The other big thing is you get to know the people who own the sims, because they’re players to. You get to know them and like them, so each sim becomes pretty much self policing.

So there it is. Download SL and start playing…now!