In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" For Video Games

July 21, 2009 -

In Parliament yesterday, longtime video game industry critic Keith Vaz (Labour) quizzed Siôn Simon (left), Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport about PEGI ratings and the controversial Japanese game RapeLay.

Conservative Mark Field jumped in on the topic, appearing to suggest the pursuit of a global content rating system for video games. Surprisingly, Simon said that the UK's recent adoption of the European PEGI system was viewed by the Gordon Brown government as "the building block to moving towards a global regulatory future."

The conversation went something like this:

Keith Vaz: What recent discussions has [Simon] had with pan-European game information on the age classification of video games?

Siôn Simon:
I have spoken to the Video Standards Council—the current UK agents for the PEGI system—about the classification of video games and have another meeting scheduled with it very soon. I have also had discussions with the British Board of Film Classification. Both organisations are working hard to ensure the success of the new system.

Keith Vaz:
I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the steps that the Government are taking on this issue. However, it is still a matter of concern that a game such as "RapeLay", which shows extreme violence against women, can be downloaded from the internet. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that such games are not accessed from the internet, so that children and young people are properly protected?

Siôn Simon: We should be clear that [RapeLay] was not classified, but was briefly available on Amazon and then was banned. The point that my right hon. Friend is making is about games that, like other brutal, unpleasant, illegal content, can be available on the internet. All steps that apply to any other content on the internet will apply to games. Specifically, as part of the Byron review we set up the UK Council for Child Internet Safety to work with content providers, internet service providers and all aspects of Government to make sure that such content cannot be accessed, particularly by children.

Mark Field: The Minister will know that Britain is a great leader in video and computer games, and while I take on board many of the concerns expressed by Keith Vaz, will the Minister recognise that this is a global industry, not simply a European one, and in so far as we are going to have the safeguards to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, we will clearly also need to have global regulation along those lines?

Siôn Simon: The system of regulation for which we have opted—the PEGI system—is pan-European, and as such, we see it as the building block to moving towards a global regulatory future. The key principle is that the markings on games should make it clear to parents which games are suitable for adults and which are suitable and unsuitable for children and young children. Adults should be allowed to access adult content; children most certainly should not.

GP: Readers, what do you think of the idea of a global content rating system? Is it even possible? If so, is it desirable?

Source: They Work For You


Comments

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

I'll say it's a percentage, but not small. Less than the majority, maybe, but it is growing. And some are quite dangerous in their radicalism.

P.S. Thinking on it, I should reword it. Number-wise, liberal and non-Christians (especially athiest) are growing. But those that are still around, and this pertains much more to the religious rather than conservative, some groups are gaining power, and a few are, I believe, very dangerous in their way of thinking and what they want to accomplish.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Anyone is dangerous if they're a radical.  Period.  There's no party affiliation about it.  The number of radicals in either party are a very small percentage.  Don't think it's somehow higher in the Republican party than it is with the Dems.  Doing so is just bigoted and narrow minded.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

If you read what I said, I noted it was more directed towards religious groups and movements rather than political.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Then just replace republicans and dems with Random Group A and Random Group B, and the same statement holds.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 They're only the most vocal because JT calls himself such.  Before he was in the limelight, though, the most vocal were people such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman on the national level, and people such as Leland Yee in California.  In case you didn't know, those are all Democrats.

So, both the Republicans and the Democrats want to limit your free speech because it may offend their weaker sensibilities.  There's also the rallying cry that both make, "but think of the children."  Banning "offensive" material isn't a topic you can point to a specific party on.  Both are horrendously guilty of that crime.  So in short, STFU on your partisan bickering lest you become a hypocrite.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Hey I was only replying to steve in that conservatives arent any better in their goals of censorship, etc.  Heck the liberals are just as bad to, so please don't consider me a democrat( I dislike both parties). Politicans on both sides of the fence try to "get the family vote" by various means.  I would rather see if a company makes a product, let the people decide if they want to buy it or not. If it offends one group of people, so be it, but they have the right not to buy it(this aplies to just about every product or service on the market).  Sure, kids shouldn't buy adult material, but does that mean that all video games have to be kid safe(its the parents responsibility to decide what kids play and not the goverment or some lobby group demanding more government laws)? 

Games like Rapelay are probably offensive, but does that mean a company doesn't have the right or choice to make and sell such game? Groups on both side of the aisle seem so happy to reduce our freedoms and choices, all "for the children" and generally people on both sides aisle are happy to bend over and take it.  Social conservaties call for banning games for un-christian conduct, etc and liberals call for banning games for sexism, etc.  We should just buy stock in lube.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Well, all's good then.  

My standard ploy is to try to come on strong at first.  This makes the people who are hard core fundies to their party line go all "WARGARBL," and thus it gets easier to poke fun at them (brings out even more "WARGARBL" and lols for me) and attack their points.  The level headed people though, respond level headedly (surprise, surprise), and then good talks can actually happen.

As for this post of yours, it was well done and thought out.  Can't really find any part I disagree with.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Thanks, I generally don't fit into either party so elections tend to suck. If I could I would probably run for office but I'm probably too moderate independent to get elected (not right enough for repubs and not left enough for dems). There generally should be some middle ground on most issues that can make most people happy but everyone only looks at the extremes on the issues.  Owell, just need to finish my CS degree and hopefully get a CS job at a military base again!

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Yeah, elections totally suck for me as well.  Should I vote for the dick or the asshole, in a blue state where the asshole will always win?  This last time I voted 3rd party.  It kind of felt good, despite the whole "throwing away the vote" thing.  But really, in CA, if you don't vote for the democrat candidate, you're throwing your vote away anyways.

But in Politics, its hard to get the middle ground.  everyone is so god damned extremist that logic doesn't really filter through.  if you argue with a dem, they think your a conservative fascist.  if you argue with a republican, they think you're a freeloving hippie socialist.  And then, if you agree with them, you have to commit 100% sometimes.  Then you get to the fact that neither side wants to compromise, and it all boils down to a good olde fashion proper fuck.

But yes, military base jobs rock.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that most of the vocal people writing game banning legislation have been LIBERALS.  Oh no.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Oh, no no no! It's better to say, more specifically, DEMOCRATS. The Dems are moderately liberal, at best. But, just because a few of them do things, does not mean that everything they say/do is liberal. The idea of censorship is NOT a liberal ideal.

In fact, it's closer to something the GOP would agree with, rather than strong liberals.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 "In fact, it's closer to something the GOP would agree with, rather than strong liberals."

False, yet again on this point.  Try to be less bigoted.  The majority of the GOP actually believes that there should be less government, and just as they're basing their opinions of liberals on a select few that want to increase government and limit speech, so too are you basing your opinions of the entire GOP by a vocal few.

And just so you know, as a libertarian I find it much easier to agree with and be friendly with Republicans on this point than with Democrats.  Most dems I know I don't even venture into politics over because they usually get very intolerant of me when they find out I don't share their same beliefs.  

Now, to be clear, I'm only talking about generalities I've found with people I've dealt with/talked to/are friends with.  In no way am I making broad statements about an entire party.  Making such broad, sweeping statements is very crass and in my opinion reflect poorly on the speaker.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Two good posts in response to my last comment.  Both brought up very good points.  However, they both can be answered in one response, so I'm responding to my previous post rather than one of the other two.

The rank and file GOP members are much different in beliefs than the party leaders.  They did a good job for a while hiding their true intentions, but GW Bush kind of highlighted the fact that the GOP is something very different than what most of the members felt it should be.  This is exactly why Republicans did so poorly in the last election.  A lot of GOP members either didn't vote, or voted democrat in order to spite their representative/senator.  Many still voted for GOP out of party affiliation, which isn't surprising.  However, even a good many of these still disagreed heavily with the party platform.

So, in short, the GOP is suffering tremendously right now because the party leaders have lost touch with their base, and they're so used to doing things the same way that they don't understand quite how to get back in touch with that same, disgruntled base.  What the disgruntled base wants is less government, less taxes, more freedom.  They've realized that while they got #2, the party leaders weren't doing very well at delivering #1 or 3.

Hell, I got so sick of the GOP years ago that I switched to libertarian.  It's quite a fun spot to be at, as I can openly mock either party when I want, and I can also bring up a less biased viewpoint of either party.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

And even funnier because both parties will just assume you're actually part of the other party.

---

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

No, the GOP says they want less government, but that's economically. But in other ways, they'd happily enforce stronger government. Anti-abortion, Christianity in public schools (that includes from prayer, to teaching alternatives such as Creationism), Bush's wiretapping, waterboarding, etc.

They want smaller economic government, deregulation and the likes, but want larger government in others. Right now, if it is true the majority does not feel that way, the party itself is still supporting such, because those who lead it, support such.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

If you're right, then why is it that Barney Frank and Bill Clinton gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack free reign with deregulation to force banks to give home loans to people who couldn't pay them back?  Republicans were against such a bill, and were called racist because the focus of the bill was to increase minority homeowners.  Such deregulation eventually caused record loan defaults, a very large cause of the current economic crisis.

Perhaps you should admit what your party did wrong before stoning the other one.

Full disclosure: My party allowed MacCarthyism, southern members of my party have been and may still be racist, and the most recent President of my party started a war based on faulty intelligence, causing SOME innocent people to be killed or sent to prison.

Let the flame war begin.

---

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Unfortunatly at this stage, even if the rank and file GOP believe in less government, the leadership has not beleived in this for 30 years now.  Granted they do a good job of twisting their message to make the average republican believe they are in favor of 'small' government, but thier policies really do not.  Generally what I see in political debates are republican leaders talking about democrat expansions while skipping over thier own (or saying 'well, what we did does not count since it is not a liberal expansion).  Since democrats are on a differnt platform they do not respond in same so you end up with  a highly skewed public perception.  Which works well for the GOP leadership since they can then expand all they want while thier voting base sees them as small government.

As for censorship.  This is something both parties seem to agree on.  Concervatives rant about decaying morals, liberals rant about protecting the children.. They use differnt exuses but in the end powerful people want to control public memes.. which ones are not all that important.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

You're half right.  The idea of censorship falls on either side of the political spectrum.  It's just a matter of what your censoring.  Conservatives who call for censorship think that extreme violence or language is bad, whereas Liberals believe that Political Correctness should be allowed.  These are both forms of censorship, as a lot of my fellow conservatives don't think I should watch a movie with the word Fuck in it, and a lot of your fellow liberals think I shouldn't say retarded or gay.

---

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Most 'Free Market' peep have very little idea how actual free markets work.. or how quickly they become functionally equivelent to communism.  Which is why no first world country has one or (hopefully) ever will.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Buck up chum.  There is always a chance that Obama will invade a country based on zero evidence.  Would more dead foreigners make you feel better?

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Oh Erik, how do I heart thee


-- teh moominz --

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

He did order an attack on Pakistan shortly into his term...

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Socialism does not imply communism. You only think that because you were told so since McCarthy&cie.

Anyway, as i understand this, it just means that there's going to be (or they want to) only one rating system, that's all (anyway i'm curious to see how they're going to put that in motion). Nothing will change for us gamers but mabe some parents would see the BIG 18+ sign before go bitching cause their 9 years son dates hookers ingame.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Sorry, but socialism was actually created and defined by Karl Marx as the transition point of a society moving away from capitalism and towards communism.  At the point of socialism, the classes would be removed, and all wealth would be redistributed.  From this point, the concept of money could be abolished, and thus make the transition to communism.  So, socialism doesn't just imply communism, but it's actually defined by it.  Thus, it's not McCarthian to make such statements about Socialism, but rather it's purely Marxist*.

With the amount of thought police over in Europe and some of it's offspring (mostly thinking of Germany and Australia right now), I would not want a rating system anywhere close to what they would feel comfortable with.  In other words, gets your hands off of my games, England.

 

*Did I just call AL a marxist there?  Ouch...sorry dude.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Well, i live in a socialist country ruled by a socialist government (at least for now) and the streets aren't paint in red, we're not following any kind of plan at work and we don't worship any leader. Our market is ruled by capitalism but we have free or very cheap high quality socialised health care as well as free education and cheap college fees. The government is affraid of us and works for our sake.

Just some information about our system:

First we have the far left wing: those are commies, some marginal idealists that nobody listens to

The left wing: Socialists, we basically own them, they're our bitches.

Center: dunno why they are there

The right wing: greedy bastards

The far right wing: conservative racist idiots

 

So our socialists aren't the bloody commies you're affraid of.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Did I ever once say I was afraid of them?  I was simply pointing out that, yes, socialism is defined by communism.  The problem I think you have, as well as many others, is that they hear communism, and think of countries that weren't/aren't very communistic.

Communism, in its true form, implies the absence of a government, class, and money.  It is the state of the proletariate, the working man.  Everyone is equal, everyone is free, and the main goal in life is to pursue what you want to do in life as well as fulfill your obligations to the rest of society.  Communism, in the form we've seen, was nothing more than a bunch of socialistic governments with dictators at the helm.

Countries such as WWII Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, as well as Cold war era Russia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and modern day China and North Korea are all examples of the potential danger in socialistic governments.  It's not communism that has killed countless tens of millions of innocents, it's socialism with a strong leader at the center.

It's great that you love your system.  It does sound wonderful at times.  The only difference though, between your system of government and the ones we've labeled "fascist" in the past is that you don't have a strong leader to centralize the authority.  Which is great.  Good on you!  Hope you keep it that way.  Myself, I wouldn't care to risk it, though.

Just a few last things to note.  Your healthcare and education aren't free.  It's just that instead of paying for it directly, you pay for it through taxes.  Same reason why your college fees are so "cheap," because your taxes, and those of all the other citizens of your country, offset the true amount.  In America, you actually pay just about as much for all of those.  The only difference is that we pay up front, where as you pay through taxes.  Whatever floats your boat, really.  I personally wouldn't trust the American government to handle socialism, as they can't even balance their own budget.

Finally, I hope you're not one of those leftists that speak so much about tolerance, as the statements of "greedy bastards" and "conservative racist idiots," isn't so tolerant.  

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Of course it's all paid by taxes, but in case of an accident i'm sure to not to have to choose which finger they're going to put back just because i don't have the 100,000$ the doctors are asking.

 

Finally, I hope you're not one of those leftists that speak so much about tolerance, as the statements of "greedy bastards" and "conservative racist idiots," isn't so tolerant. 
 

The far right is REALLY (no kidding really) full of racist conservative idiots.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

If that's the case, then the far left is REALLY full of bigoted, intolerant, hypocrites, as you have expertly shown.

You also have shown complete ignorance over America's medical system.  Good job on that.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

What system?

You mean the one who lets you die because you don't have enough money to pay the doctor's new car? You mean that the totally biaised MM movie "Sicko" isn't true? And that if you haven't a well paid job you can still access social security and not to pay huge amounts of money every time you have a tooth ache?

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 There, right there.  You're doing it again.  Stop showing you're lack of knowledge on the subject.  It's kind of sad.  Hyperbole and false accusations don't make an argument.  Not to mention you get minus points in the argument for even mentioning the pack of lies that is "sicko"

...shit, i mentioned it too.  Minus points for me.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Whatever, i hear stories everyday telling that american health system is crap if you can't pay for it, personnaly i can't imagine to pay all my medical expenses myself even if i don't have to pay all those taxes it's just too expensive.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 But you do pay for them.  You just pay for them in the form of taxes.  We don't have much taxes on that front, and thus we pay up front or through a private health insurance company, which really doesn't cost all that much for good coverage.  And that's for private insurance.  Usually your employer pays for it, out of pocket.  

You may hear horror stories every day about the American system, but I can guarantee you that the grand majority of them are absolutely and utterly false.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Yes i pay for them my with my tax money. A little every month instead of all my savings in one time. And if i happen to lose my job and need for medical treatment i'll still get it, for free.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

And I've been telling you that the whole "spend the entire savings account" isn't an accurate portrayal of the American health care system.  How many times do I have to say it for it to sink in?  You're views are based solely on misconception and worst case scenarios that both systems (social and whatever it is that America has) have. 

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Ok. Hw the HELL did we go from eurpoean regulation to american health care and socialism? GET ON TOPIC PEOPLE!

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 Someone made fun of socialism.  This one guy WARGARBL'd about it.  We said, "no, actually. your facts are wrong."  he continued to WARGARBL, and we continued to say "no, actually.  your facts are wrong."  If you don't want to participate in this conversation, there are many comments farther down that are more on topic.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Well, my whole point is:

Socialism is not communism, we have a clear distinction despite what you're saying, it's more like social capitalism from our point of view.

Socialism is not evil

Socialism doesn't eat babies, club seals or listen to Jonas brothers

Socialism is not Luke's father

If Obama wants to change things let him do it, he can't make it worse than Bush already did.

Case closed.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

'If Obama wants to change things let him do it, he can't make it worse than Bush already did.'

Bullshit.  Should we let him implement all his anti-gun policies too?  How about we have him sign all those limpwristed UN treaties that would take away the rights of the individual American.

No, if you want to be apathetic, you can go for it.  I'll keep my rights, and Obama can keep his change, and hopefully he can stop wasting our tax money.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

You ask too much, asking Obama to stop wasting tax money.  Get ready for Stimulus Redeux.

---

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Really?  Because I hear everyday from foreign citizens how much better healthcare here is.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Foreign citizens from where?

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Countries so far:

Canada

Germany

Spain

Cuba

France

England

Sweden

and either Greenland or Iceland.  I get them confused.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

France? Sweden? American insurances can't even come close to their system.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Interesting, because my insurance blows both of those countries' out of the water.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

Like?

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

I pay, at most, 1/100th the cost of any procedure, treatment, or medicine I need.  So, in order for me to spend as much as you do every month, I would need to go to the hospital for something worth 60,000 dollars EVERY FUCKING MONTH.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

There is no hospital in America where you won't get a life saving procedure if it can be done at that facility. I've heard of open heart surgery done on the state's dollar.

And no, that movie sicko isn't true.  It's a Michael Moore movie.  The man lies and makes things up every other word. 

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

 in fahrenheit 911 he averaged a total, bold faced lie every 2 minutes, as found by a Democratic (aka, liberal) think tank.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

He lies just as much in 'bowling for columbine'.  And Dave Kopel is a great guy.

Re: In Parliament, Suggestion of "Global Regulatory Future" ...

I don't know if he lied in Sicko, but he did elude that Cuba was a better nation than the US because of their nationalized health care.  Apparently, killing people that don't believe in Communist rule and all of the people that make boats out of garbage to move to Miami don't really matter.

---

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/18/playstation-99-cent-sale-discounts-tokyo-jungle-super-stardust/ Weekend long PSN flash sale. So much stuff is 99 cents for the rest of the weekend.04/18/2014 - 5:59pm
Adam802http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/18/5627928/newtown-video-game-addiction-forum04/18/2014 - 4:14pm
Matthew Wilsonit is a video talking about why certain games/products/consoles do well, and others do not. he back it up with solid research.04/18/2014 - 3:56pm
Andrew EisenI'm not keen on blind links. What is it?04/18/2014 - 3:45pm
Matthew Wilsonthis is worth a whatch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXcr6sDRtw&list=PL35FE5C4B157509C904/18/2014 - 3:43pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician