A columnist for a local Minnesota paper recently detailed her ability to overcome an aversion for videogames.

Maggie Modjeski, a writer for the Winona Daily News of Winona, Minnesota, was given a Nintendo Wii and Wii Fit for Christmas. The console remained boxed for sometime after the holidays as Modjeski wrestled with the fact that the game machine was “against everything I had preached for so long to my children.”

After some setup assistance from her kids, the Wii was ready to go. Modjeski noticed that her offspring playing Wii Fit were not only occupied, but “they were active and they were getting tired,” in addition to “burning pent-up energy that comes with a long, cold Minnesota winter.”

Once her weary children went to bed, the author tried her own hand at the Wii, playing Wii Tennis until her “arm was about to fall off.”

Modjeski’s opinion of games changed almost immediately:

Since that day, the Wii has become my friend. However, I don't condone hours of play or use it as a babysitter. I don't believe it is a revolutionary tool that brings families together, nor does the system replace a trip to the YMCA or any other real activity.
 

The Wii isn't going to eradicate childhood obesity, and, to be honest, when I hear about kids using it during their physical education classes, I do get a little irritable.

I have come to the conclusion that, like most everything else, in moderation it's OK.

A little different than the last mom covered around these parts.


|Image from Flickr|

An Australian man charged with pirating Nintendo’s Super Mario Bros.Wii has reached a settlement and will be fined $1.5 million AU (approximately $1.31 million U.S.).

GameSpot gives the accused pirate’s name as James Burt of Queensland. What had to be particularly galling to Nintendo about this case was that the game in question was released Down Under in advance of other territories, a departure from general release timing that usually sees later releases for new games in Australia.

Subsequently a Nintendo spokesperson indicated that Australia could see a delay in releases, saying, “Unfortunately, due to the actions of this individual, future release dates may be affected for Australia, which is disappointing for us.”

In an official statement on GoNintendo, Nintendo said that the game was first made available for illegal download on November 6, 2009, a week before it was released in Australia.

Nintendo was able to nab Burt by using “sophisticated technological forensics to identify the individual responsible for illegally copying the file and making it available for further distribution.” They received a court order to search Burt’s home on November 23, 2009, which led to “the seizure of property from those premises in order to gain further evidence against the individual.”

In viewing court documents from the case, GameSpot  additionally noticed that Nintendo was poking around for any information Burt may have had on the Wii hack website Yafaze.com, which now appears shuttered, offering a message that “the site and all of it’s (sic) content has been removed out of respect for Nintendo.” The message added, “Yafaze will never return.”


Thanks Andrew and iheartassassinmaids!

Early in December, word came out of Brazil that the country was considering legislation to make it a crime to create, import or distribute videogames “that affect the customs, traditions of the people, their worship, creeds, religions and symbols.”

The bill was sponsored by Brazilian Senator Valdir Raupp, who, as Brazilian website UOL reports (translated), is not in the habit of playing videogames himself and could not name any particular game that might fall under the proposed legislation.

Raupp did, however, diss Brazil’s rating system for games—the Department of Justice, Ratings, Titles and Qualification (DJCTQ)—saying he was “certain” that people were not following its guidelines. David Ulysses, Director of the Department of Justice, would not address Raupp’s comments directly, but believes that it is not necessary to censor games in Brazil, saying that the current system supports freedom of expression and consumer choice.

Marcos Khalil owns UZ Games, a retail videogame establishment in Brazil with 22 locations. He stated that such a ban could further impact what is already a “small domestic industry” and could lead to him closing stores and laying off employees, not to mention increasing illegal sales or piracy of games.

Level-Up! Managing Director Julio Vietez, whose company serves up digital copies of games via the Internet, was concerned over the term “offensive” used in the bill, noting that what is offensive to one person or group might not necessarily offend a different person or group.

Glauco Bueno, Director of Marketing and Strategy of Latin America for distributor Synergex, also expressed dismay should the bill become law, “It would be a setback to the advancement of the entertainment media in Brazil, with serious effects on the chain…”

Thanks Maurício!

Thanks to a research grant of $3.9 million from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Yale University will create a videogame designed to teach youngsters how to best avoid being infected by the HIV virus.

The grant will be distributed over the course of five years and enable the project, which will be led by Yale School of Medicine Assistant Professor of Medicine Lynn Fiellin M.D. Titled Retro-Warriors, the game will be created with different cultures in mind, in order to spread its message to adolescents around the globe.

The game’s main goal is stated as “teaching minority adolescents sex, drug and alcohol negotiation and refusal skills.” It’s proposed that instead of just preaching about things that could lead to catching HIV, the game would contain a role-playing aspect enabling those using it to participate in and learn from such risky behaviors.

Fiellin stated:

Access to the Internet is growing in developing countries and these technologies could be transferred to adolescents in countries experiencing a growing HIV epidemic but which have limited access to targeted risk-reduction strategies.

Upon completion the game will be subjected to a clinical trial in a New Haven, Connecticut community center.

Via Kotaku, Thanks Andrew!

ProCon.org, a California-based nonprofit charity that specializes in promoting "critical thinking" by presenting both sides of compelling issues has launched a new site dedicated to the topic of video games and violence.

The hub offers an introduction to the topic, noting that “The effect of violent video games on children and teens has been debated by researchers and the media since the release of the video game Death Race in 1976.”

It then lists a variety of research and opinions on the subject, from both sides of the fence, and offeres gathered images and videos on the subject. Visitors to the site can take a survey on the subject and add their own voice to the debate. A separate debate section highlights pros and cons offered by politicians, scholars or public figures.

A 1999 quote from Bill Clinton is used on the pro (or, yes, violent games contribute to youth violence) side:

… video games like ‘Mortal Kombat,’ ‘Killer Instinct,’ and ‘Doom,’ the very game played obsessively by the two young men who ended so many lives in Littleton, make our children more active participants in simulated violence.

A Henry Jenkins quote is utilized to illustrate the con side of the argument:

According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report , the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful.

If you thought that the trials and tribulations of Chinese World of Warcraft operator NetEase were over, think again.

In response to orders from China’s General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), NetEase has suspended new user registrations for the game. The suspension is expected to last a week and was done in response to GAPP claiming that NetEase had committed “gross violations” of regulations, reports Reuters.

GAPP ordered NetEase to stop charging users to play the game and had returned a NetEase application to run the WOW expansion The Burning Crusade. NetEase, however, had continued to operate the expansion, claiming that it was in compliance with local laws. NetEase has once again resubmitted its application to GAPP to operate the WOW expansion.

NetEase has been stuck in the middle of a government turf battle for at least several months now, as GAPP and the Ministry of Culture battle over which bureau has the right to govern gaming within China.

Electronic Arts’ Dante’s Inferno will not be released in the Middle East.

EA didn’t even bother to submit the game to censors reports GamesLatest, apparently realizing that a game focused on the nine circles of Hell would be destined for banning, much like the treatment Darksiders, God of War and Grand Theft Auto IV received in the past from the United Arab Emirates.

In a statement, EA said, “Electronic Arts has decided not to release Dante’s Inferno in the Middle East after an evaluation process which is based on consumer tastes, preferences, platform mix and other factors.”

If a circle of Hell had to be applied to this story, the First Circle appears most appropriate—Limbo.

Thanks gellymatos!

As noted here a few weeks ago, the Australian Christian Lobby publically came out against the addition of an R18+ rating for videogames in Oz. The group’s head, Managing Director Jim Wallace (pictured), recently subjected himself to a handful of questions on the matter at GameSpot.

Wallace was asked why he was against adding the additional rating category. He began his answer by recounting his command of an SAS regiment, and how in training, the key was to break a “very natural reluctance to kill someone else.” Wallace sees videogames serving as a similar kind of training simulator for the general public:

I think you’d agree that for SAS personnel involved in counter terrorism to do that is a necessary evil so to speak. But for us to be condoning games that did that for the general person out in the community, particularly when we’re going to get some of those people who have a predisposition to violence simply doesn’t make sense, and it’s not in the individual’s interest, and it’s not in the community’s interest.

Wallace admitted that he was not “overly familiar” with the classification system for games and was then asked why his group supported an R18+ category for movies but not for games:

You’ve got a completely different situation with games because games are interactive; increasingly interactive, and have high levels of simulation. It’s simulation and interactivity and repetition all of which are ascribed to games that make them a particularly dangerous form of medium to be flooding the community with. We’re not talking about movies that are a one off viewing or you might see a piece of violence in a 90 minute session.

Wallace agreed with South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson that the R18+ topic would hold little sway over the coming elections:

The only people who are going to be into this are the games people, so I don’t think the outcome of this particular study will represent anyone’s view but the games industry. I can’t see a whole lot of other people becoming motivated on it because they won’t realise it’s on, because it’s the gamers and games industry sending in all the responses.

More over at GameSpot.


Thanks Ryan!

In light of it losing a court battle to ISP iiNet over online piracy, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has asked the Australian government for help.

This move comes just days after a Federal Court Justice ruled that iiNet was not liable for its users pirating materials from the Internet. AFACT Executive Director Neil Gane, as seen on the itnews website, stated:

We are confident that going forward, Government policy will not be supporting an outcome which allows for the continued, rampant and unaddressed infringements that are occurring across the internet.

Federal Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy has previously indicated that the outcome of the iiNet trials would influence his future policy decisions.

One aspect of the ruling that might spur an appeal from AFACT was a ruling that the organization must pay iiNet’s court fees, estimated at around $4.0 million AU.


|Via Techdirt|

An article in The Telegraph details Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s hope to leverage the influence of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in order to lure Taliban fighters back into normal Afghan society.

Karzai is banking on the King’s influence among Taliban leaders to realize his plan, which would also require a program to socially reintegrate the fighters. Saudi Arabia already boasts such a program to “rehabilitate” Islamic radicals, which reportedly uses "positive thinking" classes, art therapy and video games.

The U.S. has questioned the viability of the Saudi program in light of a group of graduates of the course returning to terrorism upon completion. In fact, The Telegraph reports that one specific graduate of the program is now a deputy Al-Qaeda leader in a Yemen cell, the same group purportedly behind the attempted bombing of a flight into Detroit on Christmas Day.

Saudi General Mansur al-Turki defended the program:

We are confident in our system. Part of that is the rehabilitation programme, and when we say that we are considering one thing - the results we are getting. We are not giving up because a few people decided to go back and share Al-Qaeda activities.

Public responses to Australia’s R18+ Discussion Paper are due on February 28. As that day nears, GameSpot takes a look at what might happen following that date.

According to the Federal Attorney General’s Department, once February 28th comes and goes, they will compile the responses into a report for the Minister of Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor and other state and territory Attorney Generals (including Michael Atkinson).

GameSpot reports that “A spokesperson for the Federal Attorney-General’s Department would not be drawn on what effect an overwhelmingly positive or negative public response would have, stating that O'Connor and the Attorneys-General would merely use the report to ‘inform their decision whether Australia should have an R18+ classification for computer games.’”

O’Connor himself told GameSpot that he had not yet formed a final opinion on the R18+ discussion.

If a R18+ category was to be added, it would require amendments to three federal classifications. The changes would require the unanimous consent of all state, territory, and federal Attorneys Generals, including Atkinson.

Thanks Ryan!

Ever bought something online from a reputable dealer and then unexpectedly find yourself hit with fees, account charges and bills for programs you never knew you'd signed up for?

According to New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, GameStop may be one of the culprits.  The AG's office has subpoenaed GameStop and 21 other online merchants over their relationships with so-called membership discount clubs such as Webloyalty, Affinion/Trilegiant, and Vertrue. The AG's office believes that GameStop and the others have been "tricking customers into accepting offers from third party vendors, which then siphon money from consumers’ accounts." Because of the relatively low dollar amount of the charges, the fees may go unnoticed for some time.

The names of the companies involved read like a laundry list of e-commerce: Barnes and Nobles, Expedia, Pizza Hut, Staples.com, Travelocity, Classmates.com, etc.  According to Cuomo, the three discount clubs under investigation bring in a combined $1+ billion per year, much of which Cuomo believes is fraudulent.

According to University of Minnesota Law Professor Prentiss Cox (via MSNBC):

Retailers that sell their customers’ account information so that the customer can be charged for a membership club by stealth should know that they are participating in a marketplace scam. Data from public enforcement actions over the last ten years and from the recent U.S. Senate Commerce Committee investigation suggest that the number of consumers who know they are club members and know they are paying for this purported privilege range between about 0 percent and 5 percent.

 

Every retailer and bank should be held responsible for selling their customers’ account information to other companies, especially when the deceptive results of this arrangement are so obvious.

Gamestop's VP Chris Olivera confirmed that the company had been subpoenaed, and was intending to cooperate with the AG's office.


Dan Rosenthal is a legal analyst for the games industry.

A letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald argues that the lack of an R18+ rating category is not withholding anything other than “graphic gore” from Australian gamers.

The letter, written by Caleb Owens of Woollahra (thanks Kotaku) may invoke memories of the old videogames as art debate. The author writes, “There are no great works of video game art being held back [by a lack of an R18+ rating category].”

Owens continues, noting that when Australian gamers complain about edited games on Internet forums, they refer to the bloody body parts they might be missing, while when these same gamers complain about censorship to authorities, they tend to be less effusive, instead preferring  to couch their protests in a broad “right to enjoy content” context.

Owens finishes his letter with:

It takes a great work of art to advance a ratings scale. When the Lady Chatterley's Lover of video games arrives, all citizens will be rightly concerned if it is withheld. But that seems a long way off.

The full letter can be found about halfway down this page on the Sydney Morning Herald Website.

War-themed videogames are just one part of “the man’s” plan to promote the glory of war among today’s youth, helping to ensure that young minds are distracted so that the war machine may continue to keep filling the coiffeurs of big government.

This thought process is put forth in an editorial on the Orangeville Citizen website, in a column penned by Constance Scrafield- Danby, who hinges some of her argument on the current popularity of war games, such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (though the author refers to the older Call of Duty: World at War).

She writes:

Other really popular video games are about wars in space, wars in mediaeval times, killing dragons and monsters, killing aliens, killing scary animals, killing.

… the best, most loved, most played video games in the world are the ones about killing.

Scrafield- Danby argues that the U.S. economy cannot afford peace, and that “our leaders make a show of struggling among themselves with their own sticky determination not to change anything.” She expands her thoughts to additional areas were change is fought tooth and nail, concluding that changes biggest enemy is greed.

She asks:

But what if young people suddenly woke up to this? What if they suddenly realised what is actually happening to their world and to them? What if they suddenly started to care? What if they suddenly began to insist on change, on peace, on “going green” and finding other ways to make airplanes fly?

Scrafield- Danby then answers her own question:

The Old Dogs could never let that happen. So, what do they do? They see to it that even WWII is still relevant, that being part of that long nightmare is desirable. It is the most wide spread Machiavellian manipulation of youth in our history. This is not even the promotion of war as something noble, etc.

 

It is the promotion of war, using the full weight of technology, to present the horrors in glowing gore, from a totally unrealistic place of safety.

GP: Obviously this editorial is a little bit out there, but an aversion to "in the box" thinking made it difficult to ignore. While she might be close to the truth on some fronts, it’s probably not the case that videogame publishers are churning out war games at the behest of the government.

In a setback for Hollywood, an Australian judge has ruled that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is not liable for the illegal downloads of its customers.

The case was originally filed in 2008 by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) on behalf of 34 movie studios, including Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox and Disney. The suit, as noted on the Sydney Morning Herald website, alleged that ISP iiNet, Australia's third-largest, was liable for authorizing copyright infringement on its network because it did nothing to warn or disconnect users downloading illegal goods, despite repeated notifications from the movie studios.

iiNet, for its part, argued that it was not required to act upon “mere allegations” of copyright infringement and that customers were innocent until proven guilty. It likened the lawsuit to suing an electric company for things people might use electricity for.

The conclusion of an eight-week long trial saw Federal Court Justice Dennis Cowdroy issue a ruling in iiNet’s favor, in which he stated that the ISP was a legitimate communications company that was neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright.

Justice Cowdroy continued:

iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring about copyright infringement ... the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another.

AFACT’s Executive Director Neil Gane indicated that the decision would be reviewed before a decision on an appeal was decided.

He added:

…we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court’s interpretation of how infringements occur and the ISP's ability to control them.

Expect an appeal.


Thanks Grant and CMiner!