Analyzing Activision's Defection from ESA
Analyzing Activision's Defection from ESA
May 7, 2008
Game biz guru Keith Boesky offers his thoughts on last week's stunning news that Activision and Vivendi have pulled out of the ESA.While the decision of Activision and several other publishers not to participate in this year's E3 got much of the attention of the gaming press, Boesky sees the ESA defections as the real issue - and we agree:
The ESA is this industry’s most important advocate. The organization’s impact as a lobbyist in Congress is effective, but not really tangible... We can however point directly to litigation efforts, which... beat, every legislative attempt to restrict or impair the sale of video games... If not for The ESA, video games would likely not be considered an expression of free speech...
...many are speculating about disappointment over [ESA CEO] Mike Gallagher... We can expect a less confrontational organization than the old ESA and again, it is too early to know whether it is a good thing. I don’t think Mike’s presence... drove the decision...
Activision... simply did not want to pay the fee. ESA membership fees are based on revenue. The soon to be largest publisher in the world will be paying more than anyone else, and it did not sound like fun. As far as the impact on lobbying... Activision... can pay a portion of the money they would otherwise pay in membership fees and target their own issues...
Moreover, we have yet to see whether this action is truly a withdrawal, and not a negotiating posture to revise the fee structure has yet to be seen. If it is a withdrawal, it could signal the end of The ESA as we know it.
Meanwhile, The Escapist offers its take:
[Activision's] walking away from a long-standing industry group like the ESA is not something done lightly... In light of the news that other industry majors are also dropping out of E3, it leaves the impression that the ESA is standing on some rather shaky ground...
An imploded ESA... leaves the industry without any form of organized political influence in Washington. With anti-videogame hysteria swirling around releases like Grand Theft Auto IV and Bully while the general public is subjected to a steady stream of misinformation... the lack of a unified voice speaking for the industry could be devastating.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN
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
However, outside the USA, these problems are constantly an issue. The UK is always in an uproar about something, as well as Germany and Australia. These are huge markets in which the ESA seems to be failing their members.
If the ESA is in fact imploding, I see it as the step toward a more global equivalent. I dont see the Entertainment Software community leaving themselves open without a voice.
There is no way there will ever be a global ESA. I may be wrong, but I have a vague recollection that some of the regulations lobbyists have to abide by law forbid participation in lobbying other Governments. I may be wrong on that though. Nevertheless the interests of the game industry are so different in different parts of the world that that alone will mean a global ESA will never succeed.
98% of the game news I hear is negative.
2% is positive.
I do not hear the positive anywhere but blogs and game-related websites. I've yet to hear, read or see any advertising or responses from the ESA in the media. Maybe I'm missing it?
In other words, the ESA ought to be the mechanism by which the vg industry can go on a charm offensive. At the moment, I see them putting out fires but not necessarily building any bridges.
I still stand by my assessment that the games industry will ultimately loose the battle for creative freedom- it is too disogranized to fight back.
You have NOT seen the United States gov't formally back the ESRB rating system. A real victory would be a public advisory on TV discussing the ESRB rating system AND where to get more info from the website just as we already have for cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, and firearms.
Right now I firmly believe that the ECA will accomplish this long before the ESA does.
Before someone smacks me upside the the head verbally with the "ESA represents game publishers" I'm very aware of that. However, the ESA failed when they did not involve US the game purchasing consumers in their equation. You can't protect an industry by only protecting those who produce the product. You have to protect the entire system which includes the consumer.
With JT going on and ON about age verification they should have addressed that. We have been right that a credit card sale is ok as age verification, but as a goodwill gesture ESA could have EASILY allowed people to sign up online for an ESRB age verification ID card. Make it a club for all ages. Throw in the symbols on the card that the kid is old enough for. This isn't hard. Then tell the parents and get them to have their kids sign up. Give advertisers the opportunity to have a Master Chief card or the Cloud card or GTA logo or whatever.
*sigh* What I'm describing is the EXACT problem. Gamers shouldn't have to protect the industry. EA and game publishers under the umbrella of the ESA SHOULD be protecting and organizing the industry.
Beyond the stories I read here at GamePolitics I've never heard of the ESA or any of their accomplishments. If these companies are spending money on something that is meant to protect their interests but isn't then they're better off just hiring lawyers to do that very thing for them and actually, oh I don't know, get results. But hey... this is just a rant from someone who's really never heard of this organization before coming to GP.
You know, I never heard of them before coming here either. If their income is a percentage of revenue from the publishers, I'd presume they have a pretty large revenue stream.
Assuming such, it isn't a far-fetched assumption to think I'd have seen/heard ANYTHING from them. I read myriad gaming magazines, websites and even a few RSS feeds from sites I don't visit often. Until GP, ESA might as well have been the Elephant Savers Association.
Save the elephants.
Oh sure, he was in rehab for a few days and played a bunch of ping-pong. But that didn't last...oh no. Now the porch is on fire, little Sissy has been touched inappriopriately, Activision's wife is crying and threatening divorce, and the cops think it's all Activision's fault.
And no one got any ice cream...snifff.
You raise a good point. On some levels it kinda don't make much sense for Activision to give the ESA a chunk of their Guitar Hero profits so the ESA can spend that money defending T2's GTA series.
Of course, there's always the "united we stand, divided we fall," "we're all in the same boat," "today it's me, tomorrow it's you" counter-arguments. But, nevertheless, the economics of your point do make sense (at least from Activision's perspective).
Wow. You hit a good nail there. Take some (not forcibly) a company's profit and use them for the benefit of other companies.
Damn, that's like capitalist socialism. I think my head will now explode.
If the ESA hasn't done a very good job (jds' post above says the same ) then perhaps this will bring about a new forum for the Gaming Community and Creators / Industry to start letting its voice be heard.
Stand up for your medium before its taken from you.
In other words, they felt this wasn't worth it. And, honestly, I think it'd be interesting to see what happens if the ESA collapses. Currently, every member of the ESA foots the bill for repairing relations between videogame companies and politicians when one company (usually Rockstar) tries to push the envelope and stir up controversy. If the ESA collapses, though, each company gets to target their lobbying toward their own interests, and companies who don't really do violent videogames (such as Nintendo) won't be stuck helping Rockstar clean up their latest mess.
Post new comment