Due to recent events and blame-shifting attempts by certain lobbying groups, video games are once again in the crosshairs here in America. It's unclear to me as of yet whether or not this will amount to a heavy dose of grandstanding noise and then die off, or if any of the crackpot proposals surrounding games will actually be enacted. The studies linking gaming with all manner of negative impacts are, at best, all over the place. Proponents of legislation will often claim that since there is no evidence that games don't harm youths, a proactive approach is the sensible one. Those on my side of the debate, i.e. people that prefer logic to grandstanding, prefer to suggest that it is incumbent upon those affirming a stance to provide evidence for it, as opposed to asking others to disprove a link that likely doesn't exist. In any case, whether you think legislation against games is warranted or not, one needs only to look to China's mainland to see what effect such legislation might have.

That's because China banned console gaming a decade ago. Due to a fear of harming the physical and mental growth of Chinese children, the government banned the manufacture, sale or import of all gaming consoles. The results are about what you'd expect, which is to say that there are all kinds of gaming consoles in the Chinese market, except they're either smuggled in or they're simply called something else in marketing material to get around the ban.

Beijing Eedoo successfully launched a multimedia entertainment console in the mainland market in April last year. But the company has changed the product name several times in order to avoid sensitive issues.

Jack Luo, chief executive officer of Beijing Eedoo, insisted his company is selling a "sports and entertainment machine", rather than a game console, to Chinese families.

That's certainly one laughably transparent way to do it, I suppose. The other is to sell pirated games along with smuggled systems, which a select number of Chinese businesses do. With so little competition, the margins are extreme. They love the ban on consoles. Unfortunately for those engaged in selling these black market consoles, the Chinese government appears to be waking up to the uselessness of their law and is said to be considering lifting the ban entirely.

Rumors have circulated in the Chinese media that some international companies have already sensed the government's changing attitude. They hope to figure out the Chinese authorities' intentions so they can make a rapid response, analysts said.

 

Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE), a subsidiary responsible for Sony's PlayStation business, set up a branch in South China's Guangdong province in June last year. The Guangdong branch will conduct training and research and development work for Sony.

 

Microsoft introduced its Kinect, a controller-free game console, to the Chinese mainland in October last year. However, Zhang Yaqin, chairman of Microsoft Corp's Asia-Pacific Research and Development Group, said Kinect is not used for games in China but for other purposes, such as medical treatment and education.

 

The Republican Party often has trouble attracting younger voters. Perhaps they should try not attacking one of the most popular pastimes for those voters. According to an entertaining report at Ars Technica, the Maine Republican Party has gone after a Democratic candidate for State Senate, Colleen Lachowicz, by attacking the fact that she played World of Warcraft, pulling a bunch of forum quotes she made a few years ago, and taking them out of context -- such as her statement that "I love poisoning and stabbing. It is fun." Tim Lee's writeup at Ars hits on exactly the right response:

Lachowicz uses salty language in some of the comments, but someone needs to sit the Maine GOP down and explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Every day, millions of people engage in simulated video game violence without committing any real-world violence. By suggesting a World of Warcraft hobby should disqualify someone for office—and implying that voters are too dumb to tell the difference between virtual and real violence—the party is only embarrassing itself.

Later, a spokesman tried to defend the flier, arguing that it raised questions about her work ethic. How? Well, state GOP spokesperson David Sorenson used "the number of hours most World of Warcraft gamers spend playing the game (22.7 per week, on average) and the number it must have taken her to reach such a high level" as some sort of proof that her work ethic is problematic. First of all, using the average amount of time someone plays WoW is meaningless in looking at how much any individual plays. Also, isn't achieving a high level a sign of a strong work ethic?

Once again, Lee's response is perfect:

It's worth noting that the average American watches more than 30 hours of television per week. Many other Americans spend their evenings and weekends at the golf course. Yet it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that devoting 22 hours per week to those hobbies made a candidate too lazy to hold elected office.

I realize it's election season, and with that comes really, really dumb campaign ideas from nearly every political party and/or candidate, but it's difficult to see how this particular strategy is good for anyone -- especially if you want younger people to vote for you. The younger generation tends to respect and look up to gamer politicians. Attacking them for doing something that millions of people enjoy just doesn't seem particularly smart.

A ways back I noted a rather nice story about Israeli and Iranian citizens using the internet and social media to reach out and express solidarity with one another, despite their governments' differences. I found it rather encouraging that political rhetoric from both sides could be dismissed in favor of a humanist approach, no matter the vulgar generalizations each side might hear about the other. If you weren't already aware, despite the rivalry of the two nations, United States citizens and Iranians have had ways to interact over the internet as well, such as through online gaming platforms like World Of Warcraft. That is, they were able to do so, until the US government made more noise recently about the sanctions in Iran and Blizzard finally blocked Iranian users.

"I want you!!! ...to enjoy the Mists of Pandaria Persian-free." CNN has the story of how, due to sanctions against Iran, Blizzard was forced to block gamers from Iran from playing WoW. Apparently the renewed pressure on trade with Iran resulted in this block.

Last week, a user claiming to be from Iran posted on an official World of Warcraft forum to report that the game was inaccessible. A Blizzard employee responded to the thread on Saturday, writing that "United States trade restrictions and economic sanction laws prohibit Blizzard from doing business with residents of certain nations, including Iran."

"This week, Blizzard tightened up its procedures to ensure compliance with these laws, and players connecting from the affected nations are restricted from access to Blizzard games and services," the employee said.

In a fun little addendum, the Blizzard employee also mentioned that the company is unable to refund subscriptions as well.
You can have your rials back when you pry them from our cold dead fingers...
Image source. CC BY 2.0 Now, perhaps it's just me, but color me confused as to how sanctions against Iran need to be broad enough that online gaming is caught in the mix. Perhaps more importantly, as both parties like to make a lot of noise about "internet freedom" and its application to broadening freedom and Democracy in nations that enjoy little of both, does this result from our sanctions jive with how our State Department seems to want to encourage governments around the world to allow open communication through the internet and social media? While I understand the occasional need to punish a bad government through trade sanctions, this particular result doesn't seem to do that at all. Instead, it only cuts Iranians off from those that could tell them how great freedom is.
 

If I had to choose one company as the antithesis to Ubisoft's boneheaded take on business, I would probably choose Stardock. Stardock is one of those companies that continues to do everything right while many other companies in the video game industry insist it is wrong. So, it really comes as no surprise that Stardock producer Jon Shafer wrote that respecting your fans should be one of the most important aspects of doing business. He makes four very good points in this essay that I think all entertainment companies can learn from.

First up, Jon speaks about the importance of demos to a project's success:

When you don't put out a demo, some people will start asking questions… is it because the game isn't any good and the developer is afraid people will find out? Did they run out of time and the lack of a demo is a sign that the game is sloppy and unfinished? You don't want players asking those questions -- you want them trying out your awesome game and telling everyone they know about it.

We have spoken numerous times about the importance of fans being able to sample entertainment before they buy. We have seen study after study that shows that those who have the ability to try things out before dropping money for it, are much more likely to not only buy, but buy more. Why would you deny your fans the ability to try out your game, music, book or movie? A nice demo can go a long way.

Next up, Jon shares some words about interacting with fans:

As developers working on the oft-mundane, daily tasks required in making a piece of software, we often lose sight of the fact that there are also many players who love our work. For them the opportunity to talk with someone that worked on their favorite game is incredibly exciting (something we are occasionally reminded of when we get to meet the creators of our favorite games!).

Ah. The old adage of connecting with fans. What this does is make sure that not only that the fans like your work, but that they also like you. We know that it is far easier for customers to buy something from a company or a person they actually like. The best way to gain that affection is to put yourself out there and communicate with your fans.

Then, Jon speaks about giving fans ownership:

Players like having ownership. It's one of the reasons why they're playing games (an active form of entertainment) rather than experiencing a self-contained work in another medium. The absolute best way to hand over the keys to your game is to make it moddable. Many of the most beloved and long-lasting games of all time are also highly moddable, and their communities live on long after the last official update. Why? Because the players took ownership and had a vested interest in the longevity and overall success of the game. This sort of relationship between player and game is only possible when the players have the power to reshape the game to their liking.

While modding itself is unique to gaming, the idea behind it is as old as recorded media. The idea behind modding is pretty close to that of remixing in other media. This desire to reshape and make our own the entertainment we consume is something that should be embraced by successful creators. Doing so not only gains you more fans, but also ensures that your work will live on in the hearts and minds of those who enjoy it.

Finally, Jon speaks on piracy:

Ah, the elephant in the room. I’ll just put it this way: if the CIA can get hacked, you’re not going to be able to prevent your game from being cracked. Sorry. You can't stop piracy. Focus on building up a fanbase and higher sales through goodwill instead of trying to bend the internet to your will. If you're spending a ton of effort trying to "win the war" on piracy, then you're wasting resources you could have been used to make better games. The reason why studios like Blizzard and Valve are so successful and beloved is because they focus on delivering the best games possible, time and money be damned. Don't make enemies of paying customers by making them jump through hoops. As history shows us, in most wars there are no winners -- only losers.

We are already well aware of Stardock's official position on piracy. It would rather maximize sales than waste resources fighting a losing battle. This is something that many people within the entertainment industry need to learn. Piracy is a symptom of far larger problems. By wasting time and money fighting it, you are shifting resources away from those areas that truly matter to the end consumer.

While these four points are nothing new to many of us here, they are things that too many still have not learned or refuse to recognize. It is time to stop the war on fans and begin to embrace them and their culture. Times are changing. People do not consume entertainment in the same ways they did ten years ago. Fans know what they like and know who provides it. Those who refuse to adapt are going to be left behind.

Back in 2008, New York passed a law requiring registered sex offenders to register all email addresses and social network accounts with the government. Since then, a number of states have passed similar laws and some social networks, such as Facebook, have resorted to simply banning sex offenders from the sites. While these laws provide those who pass them with political capital in following elections, their effectiveness is pretty minimal if it can even be measured.

Not content with just making the online lives of registered sex offenders more difficult, New York is now poised to make sex offenders online lives less enjoyable. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has announced the first wave of an initiative called "Operation: Game Over". Under this initiative, over 3500 sex offenders' online gaming accounts with companies such as Apple, Microsoft and Blizzard have been banned completely. AG Schneiderman applauds the effort with the following:

We must ensure online video game systems do not become a digital playground for dangerous predators. That means doing everything possible to block sex offenders from using gaming networks as a vehicle to prey on underage victims.

While protecting children from dangerous predators is a noble goal, one needs to seriously question this initiative.This isn't just removing access to gaming networks for those that have targeted children in the past, it is also affecting hundreds possibly thousands of people whose crimes had nothing to do with children. To ban them completely from gaming networks seems a bit much. In fact, the New York Civil Liberties Union questions just that:

While the intent here is admirable, schemes like this one do very little to keep children safe and trample on the right to free speech and expression.

And the problem this initiative is trying to solve is almost non-existent. Children are almost always abused by people they know – a friend or family member – not by people they interact with while playing video games online.

If the problem New York is trying to solve is non-existent, then what are they actually accomplishing here? Much like other similar initiatives, those supporting it have no concrete answers. Even Microsoft has no real idea why it is going along with the initiative it; it just is:

At Microsoft, we continually evaluate ways to manage safety for our 40 million Xbox Live members and particularly for children on our service. Our partnership with the Office of the New York Attorney General helps further this cause.

Do you want to know what could really help you protect the 40 million Xbox Live members? An educational program for parents on how to properly manage the online play of their children would do a far more effective job at protecting children than an effort like this. Banning registered sex offenders will do nothing to protect children from predators that have not been caught and prosecuted in the past.

Not only are these people blocked from playing with children through these services, they are also blocked from playing with friends and family members. We are further eroding the ability for these people to reintegrate themselves with society, and for what? While New York and those gaming companies that partnered with the state continue the witch hunt, they will surely earn some brownie points with parents. After all, that is really what matters in an election year. Being able to say, "I did something to protect your children." That is the important thing. Who cares if justice is actually being served? Sex offenders are expendable. They aren't real people. At least you can keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

By now you've probably caught a link or two to the New York Times' layout-obliterating mini-game embedded in an article about so-called "stupid games". The article itself is an interesting (if slightly long-winded) history and mild (if slightly self-indulgent) condemnation of the "dark side" of hyperaddictive games from Tetris to Angry Birds, and while I don't agree with much of the message, I'm glad to see it's garnering quite a bit of attention for this clever idea to illustrate the point by including a distracting game right there on the page.

The Nieman Journalism Lab got some details on how the game was created, including the fact that it's a fairly simple adaptation of another open source game. Jon Huang, the man behind the NYT version, sounds like a guy who really understands and embraces the potential of open sharing:

“I give all the credit to the guys behind Kick Ass. They’re a really excited pair of 18-year-old twins in Sweden,” Huang told me Wednesday. “I love that’s how the Internet works these days.”

Kick Ass is the open source game that made the Times’ interactive possible. It’s essentially a bookmarklet that allows you to wreak havoc on any given site you find yourself on. It was a perfect fit for the the theme of Sam Anderson’s Sunday magazine story, which examines the rise of games like Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies, and others that inhibit a world very different from what we might traditionally think of as regular video games.

They also rightly praise Huang and the NYT for their creative use of technology and multimedia to enhance journalism—though, it seems worth pointing out that the more the game enhances the message of the article, the more it paradoxically weakens it as well: by using a completely pointless but addictive game found on github to improve a story, they've proven that such toys can have uses beyond what is immediately apparent.

For several months leading up to this November's Swedish Gamex show, the Pirate Party of Sweden had been pursued by the show's sales staff to attend. Then the week prior to the show's opening, the Pirate Party was told it wasn't welcome.

"On Tuesday afternoon, I called a representative of the show with a few simple practical questions, but she seemed generally stressed out and said something vague about the show and not wanting any problems before she hung up," says Troberg.

I thought it was a bit strange, but in the afternoon, the pieces fell into place when the fair manager, Bear Wengse, phoned me and kindly, but firmly, announced that the Pirate Party was no longer welcome at the fair.

Wengse informed Troberg that the exhibition is a meeting place and not a venue for political conflict, and the party's presence could cause problems, particularly since some of their work "could be perceived as criminal."

Just what those criminal works were, no one was able to explain. The details of the unvite were severely lacking. Troberg had tried to explain that the Pirate Party wants to change existing laws through the legal process and that could not conceivably be considered "criminal". Unfortunately, no one was listening.

Frankly, it is a sad day when a political voice is silenced for no reason other than a few legacy industries not liking the message. We have already learned that here in the US, the supposed bastion of Democracy, is refusing to hear all sides of legal issues. It really comes as no surprise to find that the same people would want to block access to those same dissenting ideas. Do we really think things will get better as we move more and more toward stronger copyright? Will the next step after SOPA be the silencing of any speech that can be perceived as "pro-piracy"? I certainly hope not.

Jeffrey Nonken points us to the news of how Chinese online gaming firm Shanda seems to have grasped some of the idea that so-called "pirates" are really just underserved customers. While the company still seeks to shut down private servers for its games, it will sometimes try to attract the users of the unauthorized server, sometimes by getting whoever ran it to help:

Shanda will set up its own server in the same geographical area in hopes of luring the private server’s users over to a legitimate Shanda game. Shanda may even rope the operator of the former private server into helping promote the licensed game.

Separately, in recognizing that sometimes the reasons why such unauthorized servers are put up is because users don't like particular restrictions on a game, Shanda is apparently looking to develop more flexible games that will allow players to have more choices within the official version:

The other prong of Shanda’s strategy against private servers acknowledges user demand for the sort of games they offer—where the rules can be changed and players can level up without weeks of effort.

For example, Shanda is developing a game platform called World Zero that will allow users to create their own game world and modify its rules, Tan said. A partner is also developing a game called “Jue Zhan Shuang Cheng” (roughly: “Decisive Battle of the Two Cities”) that imitates private server rules—allowing users to level up very quickly and engage in battles against other powered-up characters.

It's certainly not a full embrace of what users are doing, but it's a recognition that the folks involved are not just "dirty stinking pirates who want everything for free," but rather underserved customers who are really performing a type of free market research.

Remember Amazon's recent statement that:

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable."

The company quickly proved that wasn't the case and went back on its word with that book, and since then has taken down a number of other books it decided were objectionable. Apparently, one of the latest books it finds objectionable is one that explains how to game Amazon's ratings system. A guy, who figured out how to game the system that rates the popularity of Kindle books, wrote an ebook about his experience gaming Amazon's Kindle ratings. It was up for a while, until people started writing about it.. and then suddenly it disappeared. Apparently, Amazon's views on "censorship" are not quite as principled as the company made them out to be.

We've written at length here about the multitude of problems with speed cameras. What if, instead of focusing on punishing speeders, the speed cameras were used to reward good behavior? Drivers who obey the speed limit are automatically entered into a lottery and then notified by mail if they've won. So, you might pick up your mail one day with a letter from local law enforcement and a check for good driving behavior, rather than a fine for bad driving behavior. This is somewhat reminiscent of the idea from a few years ago where police would pull over good drivers and "reward" them with free coffee coupons -- but avoids the whole "pull over" part, which certainly upset some drivers.

The idea is that the jackpot could come from the fines that were paid from speeders -- so not only do you get rewarded, you get rewarded from the pockets of worse drivers. This method may also serve to make a speeding ticket feel even more painful than just a fine alone. After all, a $500 ticket definitely stings, but a $500 ticket PLUS a little note that had you not been speeding, you could have won $10,000 instead? Ouch, that hurts a lot more.

The idea was the winning entry to VW's "The Fun Theory" competition, where applicants were tasked to design ways to change people's behavior through fun. This is a brilliantly viral campaign that showcases the fact that advertising is content, and if you make engaging content, people will beat a path to your door to watch it. The "piano stairs" entry alone has amassed over 12 million views.

Of course, rewarding good drivers with cash awards does not help governments rake in quite as much in revenue, but speed cameras are supposed to be about safety and not money, right?