Xbox Live 360.com. Games and Games.

A number of the comments to my 'Thompson - Methenitis Debate' post asked that I clarify my new position with respect to my previous skepticism. Hopefully, this post will resolve that issue.


1. Properly planned, the event may reach more people in the mainstream.
I think proper venue and ample notification of the event could make this reach more people outside of the gamer culture. Moreover, if we make the debate available online (transcript, video, etc.), it would be a resource those looking to defend games could point to on a regular basis.

2. We, as gamers, would be taking advantage Jack's seemingly endless publicity.
The fact is that no matter what happens, it seems that Jack will always have a spot on TV and radio. He is close to being a household name. Rather than viewing this as giving him more publicity, I really think it is an opportunity to take advantage of his publicity for our gain.
3. Jack's position may not be as hardline as many people think.
In speaking to Jack, I get the feeling that his position isn't nearly as anti-game as it's often made out to be. At a bare minimum, getting him to set out his actual stance in his own words would likely make the debate much clearer. More importantly, if his position is exactly what we think, is there really any loss to the gaming community by his stating it again?

4. It would be fun, wouldn't it?
Let's be honest; it would probably be a pretty entertaining event. Jack hasn't been open to many events like this, and it would be the first time he's debating another attorney on the issue. I'm sure a lot of people would minimally find it interesting. And is entertainment such a bad reason?

In short, that is the basis for the debate.

The proposed "Game Tax" from Wisconsin state senator Jon Erpenbach has gained quite a bit of attention, and accordingly, I thought it was worth addressing a few key points. First, I'm sure many folks are wondering why they should care about a tax in a state in which they don't live. The simple answer is that tax ideas seem to spread. If Wisconsin adds such a tax, it will only be a matter of time before a dozen other states follow suit. In short, the long term picture is not pretty for gamers if one state begins taxing games.

The second question is what type of tax is this? There are two likely candidates, those being the "Sin Tax" and the "Luxury Tax." The concept of a sin tax is that because the government wants to discourage a behavior and because that behavior has a proven, clearly demonstrated, and direct negative impact on society, the government taxes the item to both discourage the behavior and offset the negative impact. For example, cigarettes are taxed because they are linked to lung cancer. Alcohol is taxed because drunk drivers kill thousands every year. Video games, however, would be taxed due to an unproven link to a theoretical change in behavior for a small number of users. The link is not nearly as defined as, say, drinking to drunk driving.

The other possibility is considering it a luxury tax. The idea here is that some things are just so extravagant that people should pay extra, or from a different viewpoint, that the people who want to buy certain things are well enough off that they can afford to pay more taxes. A good example of products often hit with a luxury tax are expensive cars. The assertion here would be that video games are a "luxury item," and therefore are so unnecessary that gamers should have to pay more for them. However, given that books, music, movies, and all other forms of entertainment are not subject to such a tax, it does not follow that any aspect of the "video game" so separates the medium from other forms of entertainment as to draw the line there.

This would appear to be nothing more than another cheap shot at a scapegoated industry for the basic purpose of continuing to fill the already bloated public coffers, which serves to continue to perpetuate the problem of government over-spending. Far be it for me to dictate public policy in Wisconsin, but a video game tax is simply not a logical answer to the issue presented. I'm certain there are many other ways to fund the "keep non-violent juvenile offenders out of adult prisons" program.

[Via GamePolitics]

GamePolitics has run a number of stories on the rumor, later squashed, of a Jack Thompson debate at the GDC, in addition to the debate that already occurred. In fact, GP's recent poll is on this very topic. I'd like to voice an opinion that really hasn't surfaced in any of the gaming media on this topic.

The Jack Thompson Debate at GDC would be a waste of time and have no real benefit for the industry.

I'm sure more than a few readers may be outraged by this statement, but I have four specific reasons for my position.

1. It won't change Jack's position.
It has become readily apparent that no amount of reason, logic, or factual evidence, much less the vocal and emotional pleas from fans, will sway Mr. Thompson. He will, in all likelyhood, hold the same stance from now until his death in the distant future. And in the mean time, he will use every waking moment to fight what he considers the "good fight." Mr. Thompson is the definition of a zealot, and although another debate will likely serve point 4, it won't change Mr. Thompson's mind. In fact, I doubt his mind would change if he soundly lost a million debates.

2. It won't reach the mainstream media.
Ultimately, this whole issue is about the perception of the video game in the main stream media and in the main stream American's mind. A debate at a conference of game developers won't make it on CNN or FoxNews or MSNBC. At best, it will make its rounds through the game fan circles, the game media, and maybe the technology media crowd, who are already overwhelmingly opposed to Mr. Thompson's position. The impact on society at large would more than likely be negligible.

3. It gives Jack more free press and attention.
I know my mother always told me to ignore a bully. By bringing in Mr. Thompson for a debate, it will make him the center of attention. And, when asked about the event, I'm sure he will spin his take on the event to his benefit, no matter the outcome. It's another line for his resume that we don't need to provide.

4. Jack would lose, but the only benefit would be an ego boost to people in the industry.
Here's the one benefit, if you can consider it that. Essentially, no matter how large or small the loss, the industry will be happy. And perhaps a video of the event might make its rounds into more mainstream parts of society. But ultimately, it's an ego boost without an impact to the mainstream. We all need ego boosts sometime, but I really think the net benefit here is fairly minimal.

I must admit I am relieved to see that, so far, the GDC has not arranged for this debate to actually occur. To me, the circus that would follow the debate would detract from the conference, and ultimately prove to have little or no benefit to the anti-game censorship cause. However, that is just my opinion, and so feel free to disagree.

Bloggers in the video game realm know they've truly "made it" when Jack Thompson personally responds to a post. While I haven't been able to verify the identity 100%, the responses I received are generally consistent with Mr. Thompson's form, so I thought I would take this opportunity to respond to them, but without the name calling Mr. Thompson feels necessary to include.

jackthompson said...

Dennis McCauley got it wrong, of course and as usual. The FTC reg pertains to use of a credit card to verify a parent's identity, not a minor's age. Go read what he links to at the FTC on his site, and you'll find you're wrong.

It is a violation of bank card agreements to use credit cards as age verifiers, and obviously so since kids as young as 12 have credit cards and since junior can "borrow" dad's card. Pretty simple stuff, really, if your brain has not been fried by games.

The last time I sued Best Buy in this regard, they caved and settled and agreed not to sell M games to kids. They are in breach of the agreement, as well as violating Florida's anti-fraud statute. It's a shame you all don't know what you're talking about. Jack Thompson

October 25, 2007 5:35 PM

jackthompson said...

Actually, it is up to the government to decided these things, just as it is up to society to stop 7-11 from selling beer to 12 year olds. Duh. That's why we have a deceptive trade practice law in every state in the union. It's called democracy, gamer nerds. Deal with it. And grow up.

October 25, 2007 5:38 PM

It is so difficult to select a place to begin. I suppose I will start from the bottom, where you make the broad statement that it is up to the government to decide "these things." What you have stated is a philosophy on governance, not a fact. In your mind, the government should be free to control the hearts and the minds of the people as they so choose. In reality, our democratic republic has taken a small segment of the choices people can make and placed restrictions upon them. Alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are all among the things with restricted sales to minors. Movies, music, and video games are not. As I have pointed out repeatedly, there is no content beyond the level of the Saw movies in even the Manhunt games. If you had taken the time to experience them, you would know this to be the case. Therefore, if your basic supposition is that the government should add violent media to the category with alcohol, tobacco, and pornography, then so be it. But there is a logical fallacy in attacking content in only one medium when the same content exists in another medium which is equally accessible to the people you claim to be trying to protect.

Also, contrary to what you seem to believe, there are in fact people who do not agree with you on a philosophical level. In fact, there are even people who vote for the same candidates you do who do not agree with your basic ideology that the government should have unlimited control to censor content. Moreover, there are many people who believe the government is not some grand babysitter or pseudo-parent who should be making decisions for people. In fact, it has been argued that the usurption of personal responsibility by "progressive" government programs has been a key cause of the downward trend of society, tracing back to unnecessary government coddling in the New Deal.

That being said, your view is in such the substantial minority that it cannot be allowed to prevail. Tyranny of the minority cannot be tolerated (and if you're not familiar with the concept, I suggest you brush up on your Federalist Papers). In fact, your very position that violence is "obscenity" is fallacious under the Burger test for "obscenity":

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Emphasis added to the key element, the prurient interest. There is no sexual arousal associated with violence for the average person.

This brings us to the error in your "for the children" argument. If your goal were to simply keep these games out of the hands of minors unless their parents decided otherwise, I doubt seriously you would face much opposition. No one opposes movie theaters or Wal-Mart for policies of this sort. The difficult aspect is that your goals go well beyond "the children" to keep this content out of the hands of adults, whom are more than capable of making their own decisions, to the point that you eventually want to run many, if not all, game manufacturers out of business. (I'm still unclear if you would start to target less objectionable content, say Smash Bros. Melee, if you succeeded against the most extreme outlying targets.) Anyone who has monitored your commentary knows that you would just assume punish parents who buy T or M games for children under 13 and 17 respectively as you would prevent the kids from playing the games. Ultimately, that is the parent's decision, not yours, to make.

Speaking to your credit card reference, children under 18 cannot acquire credit cards on their own. I will grant you that Dennis's reference is not exactly on point, but the concept is essentially the same. Anyone under 18 with a credit card has been granted said card by someone of legal age, likely a parent or guardian. In that case, the person who has the card has given implied consent that the card be used, and thusly implied consent to purchase the M rated game. Ultimately, the account holder is still in control, and to dictate otherwise would mean that you are preventing people who are 18 from easily purchasing games from online retailers.

You also mention "junior can 'borrow' dad's card." If Junior has asked for permission, then the parent has granted permission to play the game. If Junior has not asked permission, then Junior has more to worry about than the content of the game as he's already committed fraud and identity theft.

Your comment about Best Buy "caving" really has little to do with the present situation. Large companies often choose to settle disputes to discontinue wasting time on what amount to nothing more than meritless nuisances. It it often cheaper and quicker than proceeding with legal action.

Finally, I do take some personal offense to the implication that games have "fried my brain." I've been gaming for nearly two decades, but I also have an undergraduate and two graduate degrees. If you continue to assume that you'll never encounter anyone on the opposite side of the debate with an an ounce of intelligence, you'll continue to have your simplistic responses outdone by intelligent gamers. Eventually, sensationalists in the media will tire of your particular issue, and you will be relegated to a historical footnote.

I'm certain many of you, the readers, have seen the latest Jack Thompson coverage on Game Politics found here and here. Dennis was quick to point out the FTC provision about credit card ownership being adequate proof of age for online transactions, and the FoxNews contributor was quick to play the free speech card. However, there's an elephant in the room I'd like to address.

Everything Mr. Thompson has said about games applies to movies on DVD.

Anyone with a credit card can go to Amazon.com and pick up Saw I, II, or III (unrated, meaning the more violent cut than the theatrical one) just as easily as you can order Manhunt 2. The same applies to Best Buy, Circuit City, or whatever other entertainment online store you'd like to site. To the same ends, in-store id checks are equally lacking on these (and other) movie titles. While I haven't played Manhunt 2, I can only imagine the graphic content is probably on par with the Saw series, which is exceptionally brutal if you haven't seen the movies. Given that the research on the impact of media is mixed, and that movies have been found to affect young people like games by some studies, why ignore the movie industry?

There can only be a few answers:
1. Mr. Thompson is afraid of the people in the movie industry, as they would likely be viewed as "more powerful" than the game industry.
2. Mr. Thompson is giving undue weight to the unproven link between interactivity and a heightened impact.
3. Mr. Thompson has an unhealthy fixation on and unequivocal bias toward games, which cannot easily be explained.
4. Mr. Thompson's logic is flawed, for some other unexplained reason, so that he either ignores or actually favors violent movies. (Perhaps he is a Saw fan.)

The simple point being: If you would like to go on a crusade against the media, go on a crusade against the media, not one medium.

Ultimately, the decision should still be left to the parents, and the tools are in place for the parents to make those decisions. It is not up to the government, or Mr. Thompson, to make those decisions for society, parents who are failing to perform their duties as parents, or parents who are actively monitoring their child's media consumption. And if anyone is to be held responsible, it should be the inadequate parents, not the game manufacturers, game retailers, or game raters. I can only hope that the news media will tire of this issue soon, or that the American people will begin to realize that playing the "For the Children" card has reached a point where it should be accompanied by automatic scrutiny, as it is rarely actually being used to help the children anymore.

It is time once again to take a brief aside from the legal commentary to address an issue that I believe needs addressing, that issue being customizable controls. Specifically, I'm speaking to the ongoing issue of the use of thumbsticks in First Person Shooter titles. Before getting into my "manifesto," a little background.

I, like many other gamers, logged an untold number of hours in Goldeneye 007 on the Nintendo 64, and I, like many others, found it far easier to aim with the only analog stick on the N64 controller, which was used with your left hand. Perhaps it was from the years of using my left hand to control the D-Pad or perhaps it was just easier to aim with an analog stick. As time passed and the dual analog stick controller was released, these hours of play translated to what is known as the "southpaw" control style, where the left stick looks and the right stick moves the player. I've tried to play with both the "standard" and the "legacy" styles, but neither feel as natural. In fact, my reflexes default to southpaw, even though I'm right handed. It's just how I play.

It is unfortunate, then, when a AAA title is released with no southpaw support. Most notably, I'm looking at Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter and now, BioShock and Stranglehold. Given that this control style (if not complete customization) is offered by other titles, I see no reason for a developer to leave it out. I greatly appreciate companies like id, Epic, Bungie, Free Radical, Insomniac, Rare, and many others for including the southpaw option in most, if not all, of their games. For others who play as I do, ALT + CNTRL + GMR has lists for both 360 and PS3 control availability.

With that in mind, I give you the Southpaw Manifesto (which can also be adopted by any other alternative control users).



The SouthPaw Manifesto

Be it known that there are gamers who do not use the default control stick layout for First Person Shooter games, and as such, will not play those games which cannot be controlled as we desire. In this day and age, it is not asking much to include the most common alternative thumbstick layouts in a console first person shooter title. These layouts have existed for years, and have been implemented by the overwhelming majority of titles. As such, we, the users of different control styles, state the following:

We will not purchase a title which does not have our control style available. We will not purchase games with the mere promise of a patch to address the issue.

We will not "learn" another control style. No developer has taken a racing game, made the right stick steer, and told the public to "learn" that control style.

We welcome games that take a wholly different approach, such as the Metroid Prime series and Resident Evil 4. We have no issue with games taking new approaches to controlling altogether.

We acknowledge that a lot of hard work goes into making the games we love, and we appreciate the developers for their work. However, we don't feel that we're asking much to be able to experience the game in the way we are most comfortable.

We want to play and enjoy your games, so please include the normal alternative control styles.

I had rather hoped that this story would not become the darling of the gaming blog universe, but much to my disappointment, it has become "big news." And so I feel, at this point, that I need to don my editorial hat once again.

To summarize the series of events so far, for those who haven't been keeping up:
The Resident Evil 5 trailer was released at E3, and it depicts the new game taking place in a locale where the residents have a dark complection, which may be Africa or some part of the Caribbean, and based additionally on the background scenery, it appears to be somewhere hot and relatively arid. Fast forward from E3 to two days ago when the Black Looks blog complains of "racism," additionally pointing the game as "being marketed toward children." At which time the story is picked up by most of the gaming blog-o-sphere, and the typical mix of rash, crude remarks and intelligent commentary ensue. From there, a number of blogs "respond" to the response, with such responses appearing here, here, and here, many of which have chosen to take cheap shots at the gaming community as a whole. I can only imagine if things continue at this pace, the mainstream media and the politicos who love cheap shots will be on board shortly.

Before I begin, I want everyone on both sides of this debate to stop, take a deep breath, and at least try to think about this rationally.

First, this video is a trailer. Would you deride a movie based on its trailer? Would you lambaste a book based on the summary on the back cover? Would you demand action against a CD if you heard 4 words from 4 tracks strung together in a random order? Of course not. Attacking an incomplete game based on a promotional trailer that shows a disjointed pseudo-summary of elements of the plot shows nothing but a true and complete ignorance of the medium. It is the very same level of ignorance that fuels the racism you detest.

Moreover, the categorical stereotyping of the gaming community is more akin to racism than you would like to accept. If I said that all African Americans were drug dealing thugs who shot people, you would be offended, correct? That is no different than claiming the gaming community is all young, immature, uneducated white males or saying things like "Many of these folks seem like the type who would try to reenact scenes from Resident Evil 5. Can you say Columbine?" Gamers span the gamut from every age, race, religion, nationality, education level, and profession. I am well past my "teen" years and have two graduate degrees. According to your stereotype, I should be the last person playing video games or involving myself in this debate. This fundamental misunderstanding of the gaming community and the gaming culture may also be the groundwork for the repeated, ill-conceived attempts at regulating the industry.

As has been pointed out many, many times, the Resident Evil series is part of the larger zombie genre, in which the zombies are typically white. Resident Evil 4 took the traditional zombie concept in a new direction by crafting a storyline where the traditional "zombie" was replaced by a faster, smarter zombie-like infected human. That game was set in Spain, and all of the enemies spoke Spanish. The driver behind their language and appearance was the setting, not a secret racist agenda. In fact, I can imagine that is Resident Evil 6 were set in India, the zombies would be Indian, or in China the zombies would be Chinese, or in Iran the zombies would be Persian. It is a function of setting, not of ulterior motives. And as has been further mentioned, the Resident Evil 5 development team is Japanese, not American, and their cultural sensitivities
are tuned to far different issues than ours.

Finally, there is still the issue of free speech. Short of inciting a riot, the content of the game cannot be restricted other than by virtue of the ratings system. Except for the absurdist reference to Columbine, which was obviously used for shock value, no one has alleged that this sort of harm will occur. Many works are published in many mediums every year which are far more damaging, but have drawn far less ire. Video games are just a target of convenience. In fact, the depiction of other races in certain games has been, arguably, as bad as or worse than the racist interpretation of the RE5 trailer, and yet there was no public outcry. Racially based gangs have appeared in dozens of games, depicting Hispanics and Asians and various Eurpoean nationalities as nothing but violent criminals. However, as works of fiction, albeit in a new medium, they are protected by the First Amendment.

I would like to close by quoting Justice Harlan. "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. " The more we draw lines among ourselves, the further we move from being a colorblind society. I can only continue to hope that people will realize that if they desire socio-political change, attacking the game industry is likely the least effective way to accomplish their goals. In fact, it will only serve to alienate an ever growing, immensely diverse group of voters.

[Via Game Politics]
[Via Joystiq]
[Via Kotaku]

I do occasionally step beyond the bounds of the typical Law of the Game topics to editorialize, and politics has long been an interest of mine, as evidenced by my degree in Government (Political Science) from the University of Texas.

A new campaign ad by Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney declares that our children are drowning in a an ocean of filth, citing violent games among other media, and states that it is time to clean up the waters. I have nothing against Mr. Romney personally, he is just the latest in a standing trend against the game industry.

We are drowning, all of us, in a sea of shallow politics and fear mongering. Both Presidential and Congressional approval are at historic lows, and yet, rather than deal with issues that matter, the politicos of the United States have opted to gravitate to video game violence. Why? It's always easy to amass votes under the guise of "protecting the children" from the evils of society, whereas it seems like an impossibility to win support on a platform of parental responsibility. And yet, it has become apparent that many parents are, simply put, failing their children. But should the battle cry of those wishing to defend those who cannot defend themselves really be "The government should do it for us!" Do we, as a people, really want to leave the decision on how to raise our children in the hands of a body that is barely approved of by a fourth of the population?

There are ample other issues that this country should resolve in a timely fashion, and I think it is high time that the people demand more from their representatives than an appeal to the lowest common denominator of potential issues. No matter where you may stand on other issues, or whom you may support, wouldn't you prefer a response to an issue of substance rather than repeated attacks on the gaming industry? Is there really a value to expend legislative time on a bill that will place a 16 year old GameStop clerk in jail for selling a game rated "M" to another 16 year old? Moreover, in the wake of such legislation, will we have to restrict the hiring practices of game retailers, when no such restriction exists for retailers of movies or books?

I can only imagine the possibilities of the path on which we tread. For now, it may be sales restrictions, but in the future, it could be an act of "child endangerment" to let your own children play games that you determine are appropriate for them. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we end up in a world where a parent can let a 15 year old watch an R rated movie without repercussion, but can face a CPS investigation or criminal charges for letting the same child play an M rated game. This could be the result of letting fear mongering dictate media policy.

I believe we should expect more from our elected officials. They are supposed to represent us, not dictate our opinions to us. Accordingly, the time may be upon us to let our voices be heard and write to our representatives to let them know with the utmost respect that we are tired of their time being wasted on this non-issue.

I don't want Washington dictating what video games can and can't be played in the privacy of my living room. Do you?