My Two Cents

With all the current controversy with everything that's going on in Iraq, it's just highlighted to me how complacent and "spoiled" we've become.

Let me state for the record that I view the Iraq War as doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Yes, Saddam had to be removed. The guy was just plain evil. He tortured and killed for no reason other than to keep hold of his own power.

In other words, Oil was the reason, Saddam and WMD's were the excuse. So we went into Iraq, freed the people from a dictator, and brought those responsible for the millions of Human Rights Violations to justice.

Then the whole country turned into a nation of Monday Morning Quarterbacks. This should have been done, this shouldn't have been done and this should have been done better.

But now I want you all to think of something.

Imagine we never went to Iraq. Imagine that Saddam is still in power. He's still doing whatever the hell he likes, completely ignoring international law, the United Nations...then hiding behind the same system he's flouting when he needs to.

What would the country be like then?

I'll tell you. Everyone would be on TV complaining just as hard as they are now that Saddam's gone and gassed another bunch of kids in Iran, that he may have nuclear weapons...and despite the fact he's violating treaties by refusing to allow weapons inspectors into the country, or letting them in and not letting them inspect certain sites...That nothing's being done about it.

That's the part everyone seems to have forgotten. Saddam refused to let weapons inspectors into Iraq. Why would he if he had nothing to hide? Then he let them in, but made certain areas off limits.

Think about that. Imagine if you thought your kid had drugs hidden in their room. First they refuse to let you search. Then they say "Ok, you can search, but you're not allowed to look under the bed or in any of the dresser drawers."

What would be the point in looking? What would you do?

The whole thing reminds me of a speech made by Tony Blair (The British Prime Minister), before he was elected. I'll paraphrase, but it went something like this:

"People want a better school system, improvements to the National Health Service, more police on the beat etc, etc, but at the same time they want fewer taxes. These things have to be paid for. You can have improvements to the country or lower taxes...but not both."

In other words we go to Iraq and everyone complains, when (at least in my opinion), if we hadn't, we'd be complaining just as hard.

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.

An Open Letter

Dear Politicians,

We, the public, understand that you’re desperate to get elected or re-elected. We understand the need for you to put your broadcasts on TV.

However, we would appreciate it if you would use your screen time to actually tell us your viewpoint and policies…rather than just using it to slag off your opponents.

These broadcasts prove either one of two things:

1) Either you’re both borderline criminals and only think of yourselves rather than the people you represent.

2) You’re both filthy liars.

I mean, seriously, think about this. We’re treated to back to back broadcasts of each of you telling us how terrible the other is. Either you’re both lying, or neither of you is worthy of our votes.

Vote liar or money embezzling, kick back taking asshole. What kind of choice is that?

People wonder why America, supposedly the greatest democracy in the world, has one of the lowest voter turn-outs on the globe.

It’s not that we don’t care. It’s just that every time voting season comes around, we look at you, and decide we don’t want any of you in office.

Do us all a favor and tell us why we should vote for you, not why we shouldn’t vote for the other guy.

Many Thanks

The American Public.