Producers Discuss Video Game Violence, Gov't Regulation, Censorship
Producers Discuss Video Game Violence, Gov't Regulation, Censorship
September 26, 2007
Violent video games are a hot-button issue, as every GamePolitics reader knows.Should the government regulate violent content? Is the game industry's rating system working? What about developer responsibility? Are titles like Manhunt 2 really the victims of censorship?
It’s a controversial and oft-debated topic. Seeking answers, Gamasutra recently collaborated with GameProducer.net to query four notable game producers about their thoughts on violent-games issues.
Speaking on government regulation, Harvard Bonin (left), a producer at Sony who years ago produced the AO-rated and ultimately unreleased Thrill Kill, said:
The majority of the things the US government regulates simply can’t be done by a reasonable person. I could not evaluate if my hamburger was up to health standards... I depend on the government to do these things. I CAN however, judge if media content is suitable for someone under 18. Any reasonably informed, responsible adult can.
Bizarre Creations's (Project Gotham Racing) Peter O’Brien discussed when government intervention would be appropriate:
Only at the moment self regulatory bodies such as BBFC, ESRB, ELSPA fail to act on the content they review should the governments of the world act. I don’t believe there have been enough serious regulatory malpractices for the government to step in and create an act which unjustly targets our industry.
Stainless Games's (Carmageddon) Ben Gunstone shared his thoughts on developer responsibility:
Every Studio should be responsible for outputting games they think can sell! Should studios feel more or less morally responsible than they do already…?Probably not. If you are trying to push the boundaries... then you need to be prepared to take the backlash...
Bonin added:
Game companies are just that…companies. They are in business to provide $$$ to shareholders or owners. If racy, sadistic, murderous games make money then they will continue to be made...
So the real question is “Who leads society”? Do we as entertainment makers lead them - or do the consumers that buy them? Is this a chicken or the egg issue?
Gas Powered Games's (Dungeon Siege) Frank Rogan discussed how Manhunt 2’s inability to be sold at an AO is not a form of censorship:
There’s a perception among the creators of media... that if for any reason, you are unable to market your wares in the manner you desire, you are being “censored.” …no one’s stopping you from making the game you want to make. But the customers — the retailers — aren’t always buying what you’re selling.
It isn’t censorship. It’s just a bad business model. We need to stop using the C-word before it loses all meaning in the discussion, and focus energies on crafting an effective business model that works for all parties.
Via: Gamasutra
-Reporting from San Diego, GP Correspondent Andrew Eisen
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:04pm
Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:53pm
gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:46pm
Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Posted 07/23/08 at 01:05pm
Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:24am
Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:22am
Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:21am
Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:40am
sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:22pm
PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Which brings up an interesting point. There is nothing stopping you from playing the AO rated GTA San Andreas on the console. The AO rating is not hard coded into the game disk. The M rating is.
" There’s a perception among the creators of media… that if for any reason, you are unable to market your wares in the manner you desire, you are being “censored.” …no one’s stopping you from making the game you want to make. But the customers — the retailers — aren’t always buying what you’re selling.
It isn’t censorship. It’s just a bad business model. We need to stop using the C-word before it loses all meaning in the discussion, and focus energies on crafting an effective business model that works for all parties."
The issue hre, is how do you know weather or not Manhunt 2 would have sold. The retailers won't let an Ao game be sold, the console makers won't let the game be Played.
Thats not a bussiness issue, thats a censorship issue. That being said, I think the issue has more to do with the ESRB. I've said a few times that the Publishers, game desginers, and the ESA should come down on them hard for there heavy handedness on Manhunt2. That being said, part of me thinks it was all an act by Esrb and Rockstar to make waves and get free publicity.
I will say this, and feel free to disagree if you like. The Ao rating should be removed from the list and replaced by a rating that is sellable at retail but Heavily enforced, like say, an 18 or something. The AO rating now, as it is, exsists for now other purpose to but act as a Ban Hammer for video games, and that voids its exsistance as a Rating in much the same way the X rating voided itself in the movie industry.
Thats just how I see it, but I think it's dead on the mark.
Actually, I think that Rogan brings up a quite valid point. The AO rating is less an issue of censorship than it is an issue of poor business models. Playboy, Hustler, and any number of naughty magazines are deemed as "adult only" and yet they enjoy HUGE fan bases and can be purchased from any number of news or magazine stands inasmuch as they are hidden below the counter and sold only to adults. The problem with the AO rating is that the major retailers: Target, Walmart, Frys, Best Buy, etc. have all come together and decided upon an implied policy. The major retailers, in essence, have created the business model that they won't sell AO games simply because they don't want to be associated with them. They COULD sell AO games in the same manner as dirty magazines or movies i.e. in a separate section of the store or under the counter. They just don't.
Yes let's model our rating system after Australia's. That way we can ban games that have a political message we don't like.
@ Yuki
What would stop Retailers and Console Manufacturers from not allowing the new over 18 rating? I am sure that they are not ignorant and would catch onto a new name for AO. After all the purpose would be the same for the new rating.
I agree that this is not a censorship issue. If you read the full article from Gameproducer.net, he clarifies that only the government can censor. Business practices that don't allow products in their business is just that. They don't allow it in their business. The product can still be released and do well, if the developer takes the time and effort to seek an alternate distribution model.
Censor ship is completely blocking something from the public, not blocking it from specific channels of distribution.
Yeah, the others are right about this. It isn't censorship. It isn't being censored at all, it is just hard to sell... the console makers won't buy it. That is their own choice, after all. If these companies want to make AO games they should design them for PC where they can be sold in downloadable format, cutting out the issues of finding retailers willing to carry them.
As for the article: Everyone had some good points, but I really think Gunstone was the best. The avant-garde is always usually persecuted. If you really feel the boundary you are breaching is one that needs to be breached, then you should accept the backlash. Whining about it makes you seem weak and hurts your position. Also, it makes it seem like you pushed it for the wrong reason...you don't believe in it, you just want money.
Utterly ridiculous.
If you want to defend censorship, move to China.
A White man buying a white slave is not a case of racism! If clause B is false, ergo clase A is false!
Seriously though, if it was Censored because of an AO, then AO games couldn't be installed on any computers (which isn't the case), nor could any game rated AO be sold (As my copy of GTA:SA stands proudly in contradiction of). A more apt analogy than the prestated Slavery/Racism point would be claiming that if a internet forum, any will do, deleted your post about something, would that be censorship? There's plenty of other web forums... you could start a blog... you still have options. Is it Censorship then?
The same would, in a sense, apply to AO games. Granted, there's a few more web forums putting out the banhammer - but it's not like some omnipotent webmaster/government is keeping you from going to other websites.
That being said, you cannot overlook the business perspective. Just because a company or retailer does not want to invest in some merchandise (an AO game for example), does not mean it is censorship. It means the company or retailer does not either think the merchandise (game in this case) will be worth selling. Meaning that they will not see a return on the money they put down for it OR they will take unnecessary heat / flak / backlash for associating with said merchandise and simply wish to avoid such reputation pitfalls by not investing anyways. So while the game may be edgy, companies and retailers may not find the investing and association with said merchandise to be worthwhile. Since these are companies we are talking about, they have every right to decide what products go on their shelves. That is their freedom. Just because someone else produces the game does not mean that the companies / retailers MUST sell it for them. And making a product that won't sell IS a bad business model. As an example, would anyone buy mint-flavored urinal cakes? Probably not.
Not a very good analogy. If I bought a slave, hypothetically, of course, I wouldn't care on color. I'm white, and they could be white to; I'd rather have them do the work I want done. Historically, that's how it is. There is slavery via racism, but there is also slavery where the slaves were POWs.
Anyhow, it is not censorship. They censored the game voluntarily. It was their CHOICE. They could have just ported it to the PC and tried to sell it as an AO if they wanted. But they didn't. It wasn't censored, it was simply edited.
Germany censors, Britain does, and so does Australia, because they actually outright ban games. Now THAT is more like censorship.
I have to disagree with this. Simply because the censorship doesn't come from the government doesn't mean it's not censorship. No console maker allows AOs, and as of now, retailers won't carry AOs. He calls retailers the customers, which is completely incorrect. Retailers buy the product, but only to resell it to the actual customers. Had Manhunt 2 with an AO rating been something Take2 could've gotten to market, I suspect it would have sold. It wasn't given the chance to get to market that way. They could've released it uncut for PC, but at a massive hit to the returns on their investment in the game. If there's no MARKET for the title, and you go out of business trying to sell it, that's not censorship. If your market is cut off from you by forces other than the market itself (the console manufacturers, and retailers), then it's censorship. Saying, "Sure, make your AO rated game, we just won't let you actually sell it!" is very little different from saying, "Make your AO rated game, and we'll fine you out of business." The latter is overt, but the former is more pernicious.
All that said, I find Manhunt (and virtually every other Rockstar game) repugnant. I'd just rather have the market tell them that, than the console manufacturers.
History would like to remind you that slavery existed long before the African slave trade during colonial times. The Romans were never really picky about a slaves color. I'm also sure that in many places where the tribal system flourished, people of very similar skin tone enslaved enemy tribesmen on a regular basis.
You are a bit off base. You said "He calls retailers the customers, which is completely incorrect. Retailers buy the product..." Right there you proved that the retailers ARE the customer of the producer. The people that buy the game from the retailer are customers of the retailer, NOT the producer. Simply because they resell does not mean they are not a customer. That is simply wrong. On the same note, as stated before several times, there are other alternatives to selling in a retailer.
>I have to disagree with this. Simply because the censorship doesn’t come from the government doesn’t mean it’s not censorship.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. The government is the only entity that can actually make it illegal for you to express a thought or idea across the board.
If I don't like what you have to say, and you're saying it in my house, I've every right to kick you out if you don't shut up. But is that censorship? No, you've got plenty of other houses to go to and speak your mind there. You just have to be prepared for the owners of those houses to potentially kick you out as well.
I have to agree with Jlodus and lumi. They said exactly what I would have said.
Retailers are the consumer of the Publisher. That is where Microsoft gets their numbers when they talk of number of consoles shipped. They are talking about the ones sent to the retailers.
We as the game players are the consumer of the retailer. We may think we are a consumer of the Produccer of the game, but we are not. Our money does not go to them. The retailer's money goes to the game producer.
As lumi says, we have the right to kick someone off our property for speaking things we don't agree with, but the US does not have the right to kick someone out of the US (figuaratively or physically) for speaking things the US government does not agree with.
I'm not saying that there are no video game issues about censorship (some people from LaRouche to Beckstein still want to ban some games totally, including for adults). I'm just trying to say that censorship must certainly not be our first argument, and must absolutely not be our only argument. In fact, it should be the last one among the last ones, when the debate reached a point of no return.
To me, the main problem is not censorship but trust, and respect of the truth. If some people support video game regulation, I won't automatically blame them for that. But most of them don't know much about video games (Judge Limbaugh), or are ready to believe any piece of anti-game hysteria (from Roy Burrell to Mike Hatch to Sandy Pappas), and yet they think they can regulate games anyway. This is why what I have to reproach to them, and this is why I don't trust them.
The censorship feeling comes from the console makers, who say "even if you DO rate it AO, and you find a mom & pop store willing to SELL it, you STILL can't play it, because we say so".
"And if you find a way to play it, we'll sue you for breach of copyright." aka DMCA smackdown...
Hate to tell you but the FDA(food,drugs all of it,it cant protect us no worse than local asscations) only looks at and smells the beef before smacking it approved, because of lobbying regulation gets side tracked and made a bitch of by large industry....sad eh?
Post new comment