I can understand that the French are trying to revive their stalling economy, but subsidies to any industry is not the way. Ubisoft is naming the problem that should be addressed: high cost of labour. In France it is caused by the lack of social reform, strength of unions and rigid labor market laws. If they had the resolve to address these problems, they would provide incentive for industry in general, not just gaming industry. Subsidy is just a way to waste money, piss off the other industries and possibly violate EU rules.

Vlad:

With all due respect, I think you are still buying into euphemisms. "We, as a society" do not speak in unison, because society is composed of many individuals, each with his own voice, beliefs and preferences.

Do you believe in the notion of democracy, that a majority has the right to impose its will, however unjust, on a minority? Even then, the will of the majority is often ignored aftered the elections are over.

You describe government as it exists in your mind and in the rhetoric of civics class but not in reality, as some idealistic collective force working for the common good. The fact is, throughout history, the state was always born as an instrument for the few to plunder the many. Admittedly, in the past, the plunderers did not try to convince themselves they were doing it for the good of their victims.

How can an institution which facilitates theft on a massive scale also be our guardian against individual, private robbers from whom we can fairly defend ourselves? It's absurd.

Re: the market economy: The most successful enterprises in the free market are those that cater not to the rich but to the middle class and poor, of whom there are much greater numbers. See: King Kullen and Wal-Mart for two examples.

The whole progress of the market is toward more and better choices at lower prices. In contrast, everything the government controls and meddles in (education, health care, energy production) becomes more expensive and of lesser quality over time.

Regarding the film industry, you still have not explained why it should exist. Why a film industry? Why not something else? Most importantly, who decides and by what right? Remember, this decision is not made for one person but for everyone — even those who disagree — and entails the use of their money which they worked for.

unkn0wn_kadath:

It's too bad you seem to be offended by what I wrote. I have an opinion, which I have tried to state clearly with supporting arguments. I would hardly say that I've dismissed other views out of hand. I have considered them and found them wanting.

You may not realize this, but your views also reflect a certain ideological bent and assumed truth. My principles are different from yours and we are engaging in debate and discussion. Maybe I will change your mind, maybe you will change mine.

Maybe nothing will change, but we are better for trying!

And why would I even try to overthrow the government? Clearly, it has more guns, tanks, bombs and soldiers than I could ever afford on my meager income. Besides, I don't believe in violence. I prefer to change people's minds by argument, rather than shooting them.

@Ohma

Xeno, meaning foreign.

Also yes, someday, not having a baby with tentacles will in fact make you a white man. Judge me not, I look forward to that day.


MMMM... Xenophilia.

@ Robert Brazil

Your viewpoint, if I understand it correctly, hinges on the idea that a free market, by agglomerating the sum of individual quests for betterment, works toward the betterment of society - or at least progresses the general good. Therefore the free market trends toward more choices at lower cost - all the better for the human condition?

Forgive me, but that sounds like a simple, hollow laissez-faire ideology. The trouble with such idealized abstractions is that they are subject to the 'human condition,' (used differently than above), and as such are flawed. Such flaws as simple greed, in eventuality, lead to the necessity of the rule of laws that curb unjust use of the free-market to supress the unalienable rights of other human beings.

By way of an example, you mentioned Wal-Mart. Now, I have been known here at GP as a Wal-Mart defender, because many of the anti-Wal-Mart arguements are fallacies, so I won't go into them. But, what is true, is simply that Wal-Mart (or Microsoft, or Electronic Arts, or any other 'monopoly') is the direct result of a free-market system that is subject to human foibiles. We humans want long term economic security, so we band together into corporations. Short-term, the free-market competition keeps business heading in the best interest of progress - BUT (and this is a big but), eventually, the natural human desire for security will lead to one dominant party winning out in the free-market, either by unscrupulous tactics (likely), or by business prowess (hopefully). Then, the lack of competition will lead to stagnation. Theoretically, your free-market economy would dictate that when this happens consumers would 'vote' by changing their purchases. All well and good on paper, but in practice, what if the dominant corporation owns all the resources? Or has a lock on all the manufacture of critical components? Or simply by continuing (by either prowess or unethics) to dominate the market, leaving the consumer with no recompense?

This very real example highlights the need for at least some oversight by a central authority. The trouble is, which you seem to grasp so well, that this central authority is subject to the same human failings as us all.

Even the most benevolent government, free-market, or society will in time show this cycle of freedom and control. Historically, when central authority becomes to repressive, the masses would revolt, or otherwise enact radical change (Defenestration, anyone?).

Currently, the masses are willing to be led by a corrupt "thief" of a government, because they are kept ignorant (partly willful) and happy (government subsidies of prescription drugs?).

Hopefully, there will always be enough of us Libertarian-esque types that realize this, and try to curb the most morbid of governmental excesses, but really it's a necessary evil. Anyway, I hope I've made at least some sense - my rants don't go as well when I'm hungry.

People shouldn't fear there governments.

People also shouldn't fear there Christmas/holiday bonus which might push them into a higher tax bracket.

Yes, that was pushing it but I'm really tired.

Robert :

Let’s have a look at the film industry. Not all countries have a big enough interior market to produce high budget movies able to compete with Hollywood blockbusters and still recoup the production cost. Tax break and subsidies help small countries produce quality movies. To those that live there, locally-made movies are an important way to look at the mirror and learn about themselves. To the rest of the world, it’s a way to learn about their society, their way of life and their people. This is what culture is about, not just money.

Cultural diversity is richness for everyone and sometimes government help is the only way to preserve it. It’s not perfect, but neither is the market’s price system that “coordinates supply and demand to weed out waste and inefficiency in the use of resources”.

However, since the videogame industry is dominated by giants, it can’t pretend (yet) to play as big a role in a nation’s culture as movies. Games are made to be “international” because high production costs prevent the development of other commercial models. I agree with you: games developed within this model have managed fine without subsidies. But games also have the potential to become more than just that.

Maybe that a new approach to videogames (like the one proposed by Donnedieu de Vabres) is part of what will make game evolve beyond that purely commercial status?

@grls-r-gamers-2

technically, he would be le minister des jeux-videos ;) I take french, but i don’t know the word for minister.

Close. The french word for minister is ministre. So it would be le ministre des jeux-videos (pronounced mee-nees-truh, almost silent 'e')

There's another way to look at it. Video game companies, worrying less about money, won't have to rely on shoe-in blockbuster titles and will instead be able to take more risky business ventures.

So, in the end, everyone benefits. :D

I think maybe Soldat could give us some input on this, but I wonder if this move also helps another French move with videogames. I read, about a week or two ago, that one of the governments plans was to use things such as pinball machines in bars and so forth as a measure to curb smoking. I wonder if, under Vabres direction, that would take the cost of the machines away from the establishment owners and help push that agenda? Keep in mind, I'm not saying that that is the focus, just that it may be one of the add-on issues to this plan.

EU sux07z1!1!!

Note: Above comment relates specifically to my general distaste for the European Union's concept of government rather than "specifically" focusing on its game related focuses.

...

Actually I just don't really like white people and that many banding together is really bad.

Note: Term is intended to generically reffer not to those of a specific skin tone, but more to define groups with little or no geniological diversity and/or little or no physical exposure to the "immediately apparent" xeno groups.

Symtoms of being a "White Person" include:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compulsion to "protect" xeno culture by remaining independent of them. Extra warning signs of this symptom include a tendency for the "independented" groups to be seen most commonly in your fast food joints as opposed to your board meeting and Church socials.

Fascism.

Tendency to the add things like Afro, Muslim and Indian to the beginning or end of certain words.

Having problems with a groups "society".

Increasing use of the word "uneducated".

Hating hatefulness, hatefully.


Also, research has shown that you are more likely to be a White Person if all other preceding members of your family have are sufferers of BeingaWhitePerson Disease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*smiles evily*

Chuma:

I don't doubt the tax breaks conflict with EU policy; it wouldn't surprise me if EU bureaucrats classify lower taxes as a "subsidy." My point is simply that this notion of tax breaks as subsidies is factually incorrect and yet another attempt to propagate a lie (that everything you own really belongs to the state) by corrupting the language.


unkn0wn_kadath:

"Society" decides nothing, because it is an abstraction. Individuals make decisions and only individuals have rights in the meaningful sense of the word. And do you honestly believe that taxes and subsidies (i.e. organized theft) are necessary to have culture? Video games managed fine without them for 20 years.

Tax BREAKS are great, in the same way that a temporary reprieve from a violent beating is great. But it's also worrisome when those tax breaks come with strings attached and when the government views them as a "subsidy" (i.e. a handout).

Remember, that which the government subsidizes, it eventually controls.

In fact, everything isn't perfect in France. Of course, I'm glad that some of our French politicians take videogames seriously as culture, but this attitude is quite recent. Before, we had the choice between indifference and scorn.

Plus, we have a mainstream media coverage that is sometimes even more execrable than U.S. one. They'd be ready to believe absolutely anything. Although a "Hot Coffee" scandal is almost impossible in France because of our particular vision of sex (most of us laughed when we learnt about "Hot Coffee"), French mainstream media has many problems about videogames, including : quest for scandal, non-verification of "informations", partisan and biased views, and refusal to make amends. Some journalists even see games as opponents that prevents young people to read their magazines or their TV news.

And finally, there's no French equivalent of Gamepolitics.

However, don't think I minimize the positive aspects of my country's treatment of videogames : I'm glad that we go that way. But the negative things which happens in the U.S. can also happen in France because of the many problems of our mainstream media.

OK, I find this surprising when it comes to getting games seen as art that France is already starting to kick our (US) ass at it. They're already having Shigeru Miyamoto honored, giving the game industry tax breaks, and generally trying to improve the game industry image while in America we are still seeing them as child's toys, corrupting our youth, thinking they are worthless pieces of shit, and all this introducing of bullshit irrelevant, incomplete, and mis-focused studies, bills, and laws.

This just sounds rather sad to be in the world's most powerful country and not even be able to see games as art. Sometimes shit like this makes me feel sad to be living in this country.

Robert Brazil:
You said it more eloquently than I would. Amen.

Outside of the economics of the issue, there is someone in a position of authority who wants to call video games "art". That's exciting to me. Maybe in the near-future games, if they aim for such, will be taken seriously as culture. It took the "comics" format awhile, so let's hope it will be less time for games.

No offence, much as I love computer games, EU Subsidies should be for industries that need them. As someone that works in the Veterinary industry, I can safely say that farmers need more assistance ahead of Harvest Moon.

@Rob:

A society's views are a general consensus among the people living in a given area. That's why there are so many different countries all over the world with unique societies, rather than just 6 billion individuals. Not everyone in a society agrees with the society's views, but they are ideas that are either believed to be true or bitterly accepted by everyone. For example, while I believe that the free market system is flawed, our society generally accepts that a free market system is the best system.

I don't believe in that kind of tyranny by majority, no. If a majority group is unjustly infringing on the rights of a minority in order to increase the benefits of the majority, that's wrong. However, we need to make clear what is a "right" and what isn't. For example, does someone have a right to clean water? It seems so. Does someone have a right to own the country's fresh drinking water? No.

If I'm quoting a civics class, you must be reading from an economics textbook. We're both speaking in terms of how things "should" be, but that's not a bad thing. If you want to change things, that's the kind of language you need to use. Of course, you also have to acknowledge the way things "are." That way you can identify the problem, the solution, and what you can do, if anything, to get there.

Not all governments have been founded specifically to "plunder the many." It may have been that way in the past, but in modern times we have a concept of rights and obligations that they didn't have hundreds or thousands of years ago. You have to admit that, at least.

You misunderstand the purpose of taxation if you call it "theft." You're using society's services every day -- roads, police and fire protection, education, etc. -- and taxation is what you owe for that. Your taxes are also what you are obligated to give to support the rights of others -- Social Security, welfare, Medicare, etc. If someone has a right to things like that, then you have a responsibility to pay for it, as a member of this society. To compare taxation to someone breaking into your house and pointing a gun to your head as his buddies take your valuables is what's absurd.

Even if what the government controls is more expensive and less efficient, it's better than not having it at all (healthcare, education). And oftentimes many people have to go without if the government doesn't provide it for them.

The film industry exists because it can exist and we want it. What else could it be? Even if someone doesn't agree to the government creation of a film industry, they still have to pay taxes because they aren't paying -for- that particular thing, they're just paying what they owe into the commonwealth, and a portion of the commonwealth goes into that industry.

Amid all this, I'd like to say that I respect your opinions and I am thankful for this chance for the both of us to take part in an exercise in critical analysis. =)

Robert :

See, English is not my first language, so sometimes I can’t be as nuanced in my writing as I would like to, especially when I’m debating on some message board or blog comment system. I, too, believe in argument and communication. I was not offended by what you wrote, it just spurred the debater in me. I hope what I wrote have not offended you either.

I think the main reason why we seem to disagree is because we don’t see culture the same way. It’s so obvious to me that cultural industry is different than, say, lumber or ore industry that I did not take the time to explain why.

I guess that in a 300 millions people country that dominates the world culturally, this kind of preoccupation is irrelevant. But it’s not everywhere.

I’m not saying that the government should intervene everywhere. I agree that the market is much more efficient in a lot of cases. But if there is a place where subsidies can be justified, well, it’s culture.

Brer :

Sometimes, when the local market is small, government subsidies is the only way to actually HAVE a healthy cultural industry. It’s either that, or abandoning the market to Hollywood. But American movies are about Americans. What about Hungarians that wants movies about Hungarians? What about Czechs? Or Finns?

I repeat, subsidies is far from being perfect (we have an ongoing debate right now about movie funding here in Canada), but in some situations there’s just no other way.

I'd like to go back on the topic of French mainstream media, because it's quite complicated. On one hand, we have the average press who reached a level of quality we could be proud of. On the other hand, we face a lot of problems, including some which would be unthinkable in the United States. the main problems (in my opinion) are :

- A few big media corporations which share almost all titles, so that French independent press is rare. For example, in videogames, most gaming press titles ("Joystick", "Joypad", "Jeux vidéo magazine", "PC Jeux", which is the French equivalent of "PC Gamer", etc...) are held by only one company, Future Corp. So there are a lot of difficulties to have an independent coverage, although some titles (such as "Joystick") are very professional.

- The huge influence of TV conglomerates on public debate. For example the holder of TF1 private channel admitted years ago that its role was to give "available brain time" to advertisers such as Coca-Cola. It provoked a scandal, but TF1 isn't always the worst. Another example is former publicists who became talk show hosts and producers for public channel France 2. One of them, in particular, hosted such a popular talk-show that he was untouchable : every author who went to this man's show sold twice more books, but if you opposed him, you were almost out of TV. In fact, this talk show dictated what the public debate had to be or not until it was cancelled this year. In the case of videogames or role-playing games, TV has been so influential that the credibility of games could be destroyed in a single show or report. I don't count the number of moral panics generated by these shows, nor the number of "debates" where videogames and their defenders were unfairly bashed, without the possibility to bring any opposite point of view. It largely contributed to videogames' execrable public image.

- Non-verification of information, associated with the quest for scandal, the polarization of the public debate, the journalists' own ideology, and the influence of TV that I described above. In the case of videogames, it has been disastrous : in 1992-1993 there have been countless false reports about videogames supposedly causing epillepsy, in 1999 a single parental association managed to raise a small moral panic so that some videogames were retired from stores (and it was before Littleton), and in 2004, TV journalists reported that there had been 147 suicides with silicone bags in Japan, only because he read a bad joke made by a gaming forum and took it as a serious information !

- A kind of "journalistic immunity" because of the countless mistakes which are never sanctioned. This is, to me, what would be unthinkable in the U.S. Normally, when a journalist does a serious professional mistake, he's fired, or at least sanctioned. Here in France, when journalists do such a bad work that completely false things are reported as true, or a public figure is seriously defamed, it can provoke a scandal from time to time, but not only does the ones who made the mistake stay in his place, but they also remains "respected". This certainly explains why some journalists and talk-show hosts are so scornful that they simply refuse to recognize their mistakes, or try to minimize them, or even launch nasty attacks against the ones who oppose them. In the case of videogames, although the story of the "147 silicone suicides" described above caused a big scandal in the gaming community, the journalists are still here, they haven't been sanctioned, and their reputations remain solid, and they more or less admitted there was a mistake, but they clamied it wasn't their fault.

These are the main reasons why I think the coverage of videogames by French mainstream media is even more execrable than the one in Anglo-saxon mainstream media.

[...] Ok, step one.  French minister of culture Renaud Donnedieu was pushing for video games to be considered the same as movies, and thus elegible for “cultural” tax credits.  This happened back in November.  For details on that, scope out this. [...]